Bombay High Court
SYED AZIM SYED AREFversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The application for suspension of sentence and bail is rejected.
Summary
The applicant, Syed Azim Syed Aref, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, under Sections 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for assault with a knife that caused permanent loss of an eye. He filed a criminal application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail, alleging false implication, rivalry, inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and lack of forensic evidence such as blood stains. The prosecution relied on the testimony of eight witnesses, including the injured complainant who identified the accused and described the assault, and a medical expert who linked the injury to the recovered knife. The High Court examined the evidence, found the complainant’s testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovered weapon, and concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicant’s application for bail and suspension of sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal in view of the evidence presented at trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 326
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- IPC 326
- IPC 323
- grievous hurt
- medical evidence
- weapon recovery
- conviction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42921
Cri-Apln-1927-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1927 OF 2026
IN APEAL/376/2026
Syed Azim Syed Aref,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Labour
R/o: Near Balak Mandir, School, Aurangabad … APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Jafar Khan s/o Javed Khan
Age: 35 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o. Hayat Heights, Manzoorpura,
Aurangabad … RESPONDENTS
.…
Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Applicant
Ms Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
Ms Deepali S. Patil - Yenegure, Advocate (Appointed) for
Respondent No.2
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 21 September, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 September, 2026
O R D E R :-
1. Present application is for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail as a result of conviction recorded by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 21 of
2024 convicting applicant for offence under Sections 326, 323 of
I.P.C.
1 of 4
(( 2 )) Cri-Apln-1927-2026
2. Learned Counsel apprise the Court about the prosecution
case in trial Court and would submit that there is false implication
due to rivalry in the backdrop of some financial transaction and their
admission to that extent in the cross. He would submit that case of
prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to
him, there is scene of procurance is not proved by prosecution. That,
medical expert quotes distinct place than that was deposed by
complainant. That, spot according to prosecution is distinct than the
one which has been deposed by injured complainant. According to
him, even there was no blood stains at the scene of occurrence. He
pointed out that even independent witness has not supported the
prosecution. He would submit that though background of the
incidence was parking vehicle, he would submit that from prosecution
evidence itself emerging that vehicle could not reach at the spot.
According to him, there are several major lacunas in the prosecution
case, but the same are not correctly appreciated by the trial Court
which needs to be raised in appeal and they are being grounds in the
appeal, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is urged for.
3. While opposing the relief, learned APP pointed out that
minor account, like parking vehicle, there is use of deadly weapon of
2 of 4
(( 3 )) Cri-Apln-1927-2026
knife. That, injured complainant has lost his one eye completely.
There is recovery of knife. As sole testimony of injured complainant
was inspiring confidence, according to her, learned trial Court
committed no error in convicting the applicant.
Learned counsel for complainant also opposed on similar
grounds i.e. sole testimony of injured complainant inspiring
confidence and there is to be recovery of knife of the incidence.
4. Perused the papers. Case of prosecution seems to be
rested on evidence as many as eight witnesses. Crucial evidence is of
injured and medical expert. In his testimony, PW-1 deposed that, on
31.10.2023, when he was near Balak Mandir School in front of a
dairy, he was questioned by accused for parking vehicle and the
quarrel followed assault wherein there was use of knife which was
alleged hit on the left eye as well as back. Medical Expert PW-5 has
been examined by prosecution. This expert had identified knife and
deposed about injury to be possible by the same. Therefore, here
there is injured witness account finding support from medical
evidence. Recovery of knife is said to be proved from the accused.
Injured is said to be left permanently partially brief having lost one
3 of 4
(( 4 )) Cri-Apln-1927-2026
eye. Therefore, taking the nature of accusations which are proved,
this Court does not find it a fit case to consider the same. Hence,
following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is rejected.
(ii) Fees of learned counsel Ms. Deepali S. Patil - Yenegure,
appointed for respondent No.2, be paid by the High Court Legal
Services Sub-Comittee, Aurangabad, as per Rules.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS
4 of 4
Checking your session…