This criminal appeal by the State against an order of acquittal was dismissed. The High Court refused leave to appeal and did not reconsider the trial court's reasoning, noting the evidence against the respondent was vague and insufficient.
Leave to appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. refused and appeal dismissed.
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
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant
Vs.
Sou. Sujata Subhash Swami ..Respondent
(Org.Accd. No.2)
Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for appellant-State.
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.
Date : August 14, 2007.
P.C.:
1. This is an appeal by the State praying that
(a) leave to appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C.
against the order of acquittal of accused no.2 -
Sujata Subhash Swami and (b) that the order of
acquittal dated 16/2/2004 passed in favour of the
respondent-accused no.2 by the learned 5th Adhoc
Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case
No.183 of 2003 be quashed and set aside.
2. In the impugned order of acquittal the trial
court has referred to the depositions of PW 1 Varsha
Swami and PW 2 Shivanand Swami. Accused no.2 Sujata
is the married sister of accused no.1 and it was
alleged that she was residing all along with accused
:2:
no.1 at village Yelavi. The trial court referred to
the depositions of these two witnesses and noted that
the only specific instance about the alleged
harassment against accused no.2 Sujata was only to the
extent that in the night prior to the date of the
incident there was quarrel between the said accused
no.2 and deceased Anuradha on the ground that she did
not put the plate on the pot of milk and vegetables
and except this incident there was absolutely no other
evidence against the accused no.2 regarding
ill-treatment, harassment or cruelty. PW 2 Shivanand
Swami stated that accused no.2 was taunting to
deceased and this was a vague allegation. It was
under these circumstances that the trial court thought
it fit to acquit the accused no.2.
3. The reasoning set out by the trial court does
not call for reconsideration against the accused no.2
and hence leave to appeal is hereby refused.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
:3:
(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused should be granted.
Whether the order of acquittal of accused no.2 should be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Sou. Sujata Subhash Swami
B.H. MARLAPALLE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court