FARUKH GAFAR SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the appellant/convicted accused on bail during pendency of the appeal filed by him. He is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 25 read with 3 of the Bombay Police Act. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Lesser punishments are imposed on other counts and all sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/convicted accused. He took me through evidence of PW2 Dr.Parag Warhade and PW3 Dr.Vijay Waghmare, attached to the Sassoon Hospital, Pune, and argued that cross-examination of these Medical Officers does not show that the injured had suffered injuries because of gunshot. The learned counsel also took me through the papers of medical examination as well as report of forensic examination. It is argued that Injury Certificate issued by the Sassoon Hospital shows that injured Vinayak Mane had not suffered any bullet injury but he was injured because of hard and blunt object. Even X-ray report sent for forensic examination shows that there was no gunshot injury to injured Samarth Londhe, who, at the relevant time, was 5 years old. He argued that gunshot injury reflecting in the certificate was added later on, as seen from the certificate.

(3.) The learned APP opposed the application by contending that forensic evidence collected by the prosecution makes out a case of injury by firearm and for that purpose, reliance was placed by the learned APP on Examination Report at Exhibit 31. He argued that there is evidence of recovery of a firearm at the instance of the appellant/convicted accused. My attention is also drawn to evidence of PW10 Suyog Patil, Chemical Analyzer, by the learned APP.