The appellant challenged the acquittal by a trial court in a case under Section 304(a) IPC. The single judge found the prosecution case infirm due to lack of eyewitness corroboration, missing FIR, and delay, dismissing the appeal.
The Criminal Appeal was dismissed; leave refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant.
v/s.
Dada Nana Mane. .. Respondent.
Shri A.M.Shringarpure, APP for the state.
None for respondent.
CORAM: V.M.KANADE, J.
DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2004,
P.C. :-
. Heard the learned APP for the State. The State
is challenging the Judgment and order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mhaswad, Dist.Satara
in Regular Criminal Case No. 28/2003. By the said
Judgment and order, the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class acquitted the accused of the offence with
which he was charged under section 304(a) of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased was
removing the electric motor from the well and P.W.2 and
2
3 were inside the well assisting the deceased.
Prosecution case is that the accused started the
electric motor and as a result the deceased received
electric shock and he died on the spot.
3. The learned APP has taken me through the notes of
evidence and also other documentary evidence produced
by the prosecution. From the spot panchanama, it can
be seen that the width of the well is 55 ft. and the
water level was at around 28 ft. from the top surface.
The deceased was trying to remove the electric motor
from the well when the incident in question took place.
After perusing spot panchanama and evidence of P.W.2
and 3 who were examined as eye-witnesses, it is
difficult to arrive at a conclusion that P.W.2 and 3
would have seen the person who had started electric
motor as admittedly they were inside the well. Further
the starting button was at a distance of 25 ft. from
the well and the box was locked. Thus it is difficult
to accept the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 that they had
seen the accused starting the button.
4. Apart from that, there are other infirmities in
the prosecution case. The prosecution has not examined
the investigating officer. Similarly the original
First Information Report is also not brought on record.
3
Name of the accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R.
There is also gross delay in filing the report in the
police station. Thus in my view, there is no reason to
interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial
Court. Leave is refused. Appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal should be interfered with given the infirmities in the prosecution case.
Whether the absence of the investigating officer and the original FIR justifies interfering with the acquittal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Dada Nana Mane
V.M.Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court