BHALCHANDRA PANDURANG MADHVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 482 of 2012, Learned APP for the State and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1353 of 2012.

(2.) Criminal Application No. 482 of 2012 is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the Accused No. 3. The Applicant/Accused No. 3 along with other Accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147/149, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant has invited our attention to the orders passed by this Court under which the Accused Nos. 5 to 14 have been enlarged on bail. He submitted that out of two eye witnesses, whose evidence has been relied by the trial Court, P.W. 3 has not specifically deposed about the presence of the Applicant. He pointed out that P.W. 1 has stated that the Applicant assaulted the deceased with a stick. He stated that same role has been attributed by P.W. 1 to the other accused, save and except Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. He pointed out that the prosecution has relied upon another circumstance namely, recovery of bloodstained clothes on person of the Applicant on which there were blood-stains of blood group B. He submitted that apart from the fact that the panch witness has not identified the Applicant in the court, the panchanama as well as evidence of the panch witness are silent about the sealing of the clothes after seizure. Therefore, he submitted that no distinction can be made between the Applicant and the other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail.