Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Namdeo Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2008APPLN/2385/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application raising leave to appeal against acquittal in a murder case. The single-judge High Court held that since the identity of the deceased was not established and there was no direct evidence or reliable extra-judicial confession, no interference with the lower court's decision was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal was dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vijay Namdeo Jadhav… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2385 OF 2007

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra : Applicant

¶6

 (Orig.Complainant)

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

 Vijay Namdeo Jadhav & Ors. : Respondents

¶9

 (Orig.Accused nos.1 to 3)

¶10

 Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the

¶11

 applicant.

¶12

 Mr.A.R.Pitale for respondent no.1.

¶13

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A.BOBDE,JJ.

¶14

 DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2008.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the
 acquittal of the accused for various offences, including
 the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C.

¶17

 2. On 25.10.2004 at about 12.30 p.m., P.W.6 Dattatraya,

¶18

 who was the Sub-Inspector, received an information that
 the dead body of a female aged 32/35 was lying in the
 forest of village Sonawala. P.W.6 Dattatraya rushed to
 the spot and found the dead body of a female which was

¶19

 -: 2 :-

¶20

 completely decomposed. After recording inquest

¶21

 panchanama, the photographs of the spot and the dead body
 were taken and the dead body was sent for autopsy to J.J.
 Hospital, Mumbai. The medical evidence was that the
 deceased had injuries on her neck and cheek. An offence
 was registered and investigation started.

¶22

 3. One of the accused was the husband of the alleged
 deceased and another was the mother-in-law and the third
 one was the brother-in-law. Nobody claimed the dead body
 and the body was cremated by the police themselves. There
 was no direct evidence in the case. The prosecution tried
 to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of
 circumstantial evidence. But the prosecution failed to
 establish one of the important aspects of the matter which
 is related to the identification of the body. It was
 alleged that six photographs were taken of the dead body
 and shown to the relatives of the deceased, but when the
 charge-sheet was filed, only one photograph i.e. exh.P-49
 was attached to the charge-sheet. When it was shown to
 the witnesses, they stated that they had not seen these
 photographs. During cross-examination of P.W.11, the
 Investigating Officer admitted that he had not shown the
 photographs to the relatives of deceased Kalpana.
 Considering that there is no evidence to show that the
 clothes on the dead body of the deceased were shown to the

¶23

 -: 3 :-

¶24

 relatives of Kalpana and the identity of the deceased was
 not established, the learned Court came to the conclusion
 that the identify of the deceased was not established.
 The other circumstance of last seen becomes unimportant.
 Another important circumstance, according to the
 prosecution, relates to extra-judicial confession before
 the Advocate (P.W.7). P.W.7 denied that any confession
 was made before him. As such, there is no ground for this
 Court to interfere in the matter.

¶25

 4. Accordingly, this application for leave to appeal is
 dismissed.

¶26

 (BILAL NAZKI, J.)

¶27

 (S.A. BOBDE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Namdeo Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Namdeo Jadhav 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

Himanshu Gangadhar Jagdhale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laiq Ahmad Rafiq Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Parmeshwar Bhiwa Pol

Sanjay Dagdu Mane. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Kumar Ram Narayan Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ladkya Radkya Kom Vs Sr. Inspector of Police and Ors.