Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Govind Mangela @ Sanjug and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2008APPLN/3920/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against an acquittal for murder, the High Court granted the State leave to appeal. After reviewing discrepancies in prosecution evidence and the uncorroborated nature of witness testimony, the Court held that the trial judge's view was reasonable and possible, rejecting the application for leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal against the acquittal is rejected; the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents are upheld.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay Govind… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 .{1}.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3920 OF 2007
 [FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL]

¶4

IN

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant.
 Versus

¶7

 1. Sanjay Govind Mangela @ Sanjay &

¶8

 2. Santosh Bhagwan Mangela. ..Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the Applicant-State.
 Ms.Anjali Patil, Adv. for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATED : APRIL 01, 2008.
 P.C.:-

¶11

 1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State
 and the learned Advocate for the respondent

¶12

 No.2-original accused No.2. None present for

¶13

 respondent No.1-original accused No.1 though served.

¶14

 2. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has preferred
 this leave to file appeal against the judgment and
 order dated 6th February, 2007 passed by the learned
 10th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai
 in Sessions Case No.163 of 2005. By the said
 judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge
 acquitted the respondents of the offence punishable
 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian

¶15

 .{2}.

¶16

 Penal Code.

¶17

 3. The prosecution case is that respondent No.1
 caught deceased Sahdev and respondent No.2 assaulted
 Sahdev with knife. On account of the assault, Sahdev
 expired.

¶18

 4. We have perused the judgment and order passed by
 the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence
 produced by the learned APP in the present case.
 After taking into consideration all the material on
 record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by
 the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and
 possible view.

¶19

 5. Firstly there is delay in lodging the FIR. The
 said delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
 PW-1 Pushpa Mangela and PW-8 Shyam Mangela claim to
 be the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-1 Pushpa
 Mangela is sister of the deceased and PW-8 Shyam
 Mangela is the brother of the deceased. PW-1 Pushpa
 Mangela has stated that respondent No.1 Sanjay caught
 hold of Sahdev and respondent No.2 assaulted Sahdev
 on leg with knife. However, evidence of this

¶20

 .{3}.

¶21

 witness, i.e. PW-1, is not corroborated by medical
 evidence. There is no injury on the leg of Sahdev.
 The post-mortem notes show that Sahdev had not one
 injury but two injuries and the said injuries were on
 the chest and on the shoulder. Moreover, evidence of
 PW-1 Pushpa also shows that the accused assaulted her
 brother i.e. PW-8 Shyam. However, Shyam himself
 does not state that anyone assaulted him. Moreover
 Shyam does not state that his sister PW-1 Pushpa was
 present at the spot.

¶22

 6. As far as evidence of PW-8 Shyam is concerned,
 his evidence indicates that he was not present at the
 spot, but, infact he visited the site the next day.
 This is evident from para-2 of his cross-examination
 wherein he has stated that, "It is correct to say
 that on that day I have taken my sleep in the house
 of my friend and later on next date I visited the
 spot .." Assuming for the sake of argument that PW-8
 Shyam was present at the spot and he had witnessed
 the incident, yet, though he was the brother of the
 deceased, he has not disclosed the incident to the
 police. PW-8 Shyam has deposed that the police
 station is adjacent to the Juhu garden and there is

¶23

 .{4}.

¶24

 patrolling on the said beach. Despite this fact, he
 has not informed the police about the said incident.
 Moreover, we have already observed that the evidence
 of this witness PW-8 Shyam indicates that he visited
 the scene of offence in the morning i.e. on the next
 day of the incident.

¶25

 7. Even as far as the scene of offence is
 concerned, there is discrepancy. The evidence of

¶26

 PW-1 Pushpa as seen from para-9 of her evidence
 indicates that the incident has taken place near the
 temple. However, in para-3 of his evidence, PW-8
 Shyam has stated that, "It is correct to say that,
 incident has taken place on the ground which is
 situated near the creek." This discrepancy regarding
 the scene of incident also raises grave doubt in the
 mind.

¶27

 8. No motive has been established by the

¶28

 prosecution for the accused to commit the crime. No
 independent witness has been examined, though, the
 incident has taken place in a thickly populated area.
 Only two interested witnesses have been examined by
 the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge has

¶29

 .{5}.

¶30

 observed that their evidence does not inspire
 confidence.

¶31

 9. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that
 the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a
 reasonable and possible view.

¶32

 10. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal
 could have been reasonably arrived at then mere
 circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a
 different view, would be no ground to interfere. In
 this connection, there is no dearth of authorities
 but to eschew prolixity, we are referring to only two
 of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors.

¶33

Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan

¶34

Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony, the
 Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings
 of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the
 material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal
 substitute its findings, merely because another
 contrary opinion was possible on the basis of
 material on record. As stated earlier, the view

¶35

 taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable
 and possible view, hence, no interference is called

¶36

 .{6}.

¶37

 for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected.

¶38

 (F.I.REBELLO,J.)

¶39

 (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Govind Mangela @ Sanjug and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Govind Mangela @ Sanjug and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindranath Ramdeo Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Abdul Wahid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anand Augstin Bhambal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Sadashiv Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Perika Mani Devendra Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay Govind Mangela @ Sanjug and Anr.