Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Balkrishna Shankar Pisal and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2007APPLN/5570/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court admitted the State's appeal only against respondent no. 1, finding sufficient evidence against him under Section 498A IPC. Acquittals of respondents 2 to 5 were confirmed as no case was made out against them. Leave to appeal was refused regarding the other accused.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted only against respondent no. 1; acquittal of respondents no. 2 to 5 confirmed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Balkrishna Shankar Pisal… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5570 OF 2005
 IN
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. -- OF 2005

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
 (Orig.Complainant)
 V/s.

¶5

 Balkrishna Shankar Pisal & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

 Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State.
 Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶8

DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2007

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

 . The appellant State of Maharashtra has filed
 this application seeking leave to file appeal
 challenging the judgment and order passed by the
 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khadki Court, Pune,
 dated 16th April, 2005. By the said judgment and order,
 the trial Court was pleased to acquit the original
 accused nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under
 Section 498A, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶11

 2. The Counsel for the applicant has invited my
 attention to the impugned order and has pointed out that
 there is sufficient evidence to indicate that husband of
 the complainant had committed an offence punishable

¶12

 - 2 -

¶13

 under Section 498A. He has taken me through the
 evidence.

¶14

 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the
 other hand, submitted that there is no evidence against
 the respondents no.2 to 5 as regards allegation under
 Section 498A is concerned.

¶15

 4. I have perused the impugned order. Initially,
 an allegation had been made by the complainant against
 respondent no.1 for harassment and for demand of dowry.
 The evidence indicates that the other accused are not
 involved in harassing and assaulting the complainant.
 Under these circumstances, no case is made out for grant
 of leave in respect of respondent nos.2 to 5. Hence,
 leave is refused in respect of these respondents.

¶16

 5. However, leave is granted only against

¶17

 respondent no.1. Appeal is, therefore, admitted only
 against respondent no.1 and the order of the trial court
 is confirmed in respect of other accused so far as their
 acquittal under Section 498A, 504 read with Section 34

¶18

 - 3 -

¶19

 of the IPC.

¶20

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Balkrishna Shankar Pisal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Balkrishna Shankar Pisal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vithal Poojary Vs Durgaprasad N. Shetty and Anr.

Babasaheb Dattatraya Galinde Vs Kiran Pandurang Pore and Anr.

Godfrey D'Sliva Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anurath Dagadu Shegade Vs Vitthal Laxman Shegade and Ors.

Antim Bhagwandas Totla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prithvisingh Vitthalsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra