Allowed

Pundlik Vithu Patil v. State of Maharashtsra

Bombay HC25 Nov 2004APEAL/215/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal sought to challenge a Sessions Court conviction under Section 302 IPC. The High Court of Bombay, by majority, allowed the appeal, directing the accused's acquittal and continued detention in jail until certified mentally fit by a psychiatrist.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Appellant acquitted; Accused to remain in Central Jail under psychiatric treatment until certified fit for release.

1. This Criminal Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 8th April 1999 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.150 of 1998 wherein the Appellant - Accused was held guilty of the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. and was ordered to be sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

2. The Appeal was heard by us, and Gokhale J. delivered a judgment on 5th August 2004 holding that the Accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. and hence allowed the Appeal. The Accused was, however, directed to continue to be lodged in the Central Jail at Kolhapur since he needs psychiatric treatment. It was directed that he will continue to

remain under a psychiatrist until he certifies the Appellant to be mentally fit, and only on obtaining such a certificate that it would be open to the relatives of the Accused to move the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur to deliver the Accused to him/her. The applicant was also to give an undertaking to look after the Accused.

3. Aguiar J. rendered the separate judgment on 5th August 2004. He held that the Accused was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. He, however, as well directed that the Accused be continued to be given psychiatric treatment. Aguiar J., therefore, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant - Accused.

4. In view of difference of opinion, the matter was referred under Section 392 of Cr.P.C. by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to a Third Judge, i.e. V.G. Palshikar J. Palshikar J. concurred with the view taken by Gokhale J. in his judgment and order rendered on 29th October 2004. Aguiar J. was also of the opinion that the Accused requires psychiatric treatment while undergoing sentence since that was a medical opinion.

and order dated 8th April 1999 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.150 of 1998 is set aside. The Appellant - Accused is acquitted. However, the Appellant will continue to remain in the Central Jail at Kolhapur until, as stated above, he is certified to be fit to be released by a psychiatrist. He will continue to remain under the treatment of a psychiatrist. It is only on a certificate being given by the psychiatrist that it will be open to the relatives of the Accused to move the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur to deliver the Accused to him / her. The applicant will also give an undertaking to look after the Accused. If such a motion will be moved, the same will be considered in the

Pundlik Vithu Patil v. State of Maharashtsra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pundlik Vithu Patil v. State of Maharashtsra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Satish L. Gawte and Ors. . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Lahu @ Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lahu @ Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pundlik Vithu Patil Vs State of Maharashtsra