Partly allowed

The State of Mah v. Sunil Narsing Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2009APPLN/1849/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal by the State, the High Court partially entertained a plea for bail in a burn death case. The Court was not convinced by the defense's suicide plea, granted bail to three accused, refused it to others, and ordered action for costs.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to accused 1, 2, and 3 with surety costs; leave to appeal refused for accused 4 and 5; record returned.

The State of Mah Vs Sunil Narsing Patil and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1849 OF 2009

¶4

The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant.
Versus
Sunil s/o Narsing Patil
& Others. ... Respondents.

¶5

Shri.B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for the applicant – State.

¶6

Shri. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1
to 5.

¶7

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &
 SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.
 DATE: 23rd SEPTEMBER 2009
PER COURT :
1)Heard.
2)We have perused the record and
proceedings. The deceased was married to accused
No.1 – Sunil on 12-6-2005. The incident is dated

¶8

¶9

22-10-2006. The accused include husband, mother-

¶10

in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and cousin

¶11

mother-in-law. There is no eye witness in the

¶12

case, neither any dying declaration of the

¶13

deceased. The deceased died due to 100% burn
injuries. But we find certain circumstances

¶14

emerging out of the prosecution case. The

¶15

defence of the accused was that the deceased was
taking treating of psychiatric and she might have
committed suicide.

¶16

3)It is curious to note that from the
deposition of DW Suresh Rameshwar Sandale
(Exhibit 64) who was examined by the defence to

¶17

prove the plea of alibi stated that original

¶18

accused No.3 Shalinibai, mother-in-law of the
deceased, was present in the house when he

¶19

reached the house and found the deceased in burnt

¶20

condition. He stated that within 5 minutes
original accused No.2 and 4 reached the spot. It
has come on record that the husband of the

¶21

deceased was working in a sugar factory.

¶22

¶23

4)The prosecution alleges that there was

¶24

demand of money for purchasing motor cycle. There
is discrepancy as to the amount of demand. The
deceased was badly burnt. We have seen the
photographs of the deceased in burnt condition
which are on record.

¶25

5) The case mainly rests on circumstantial

¶26

evidence and certain inferences to be drawn. In

¶27

the statement under section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the accused No.3 – Shalini,
stated that parents of the deceased demanded Rs.

¶28

two lakhs from the accused and as the same was
denied a false case was lodged. The accused No.1
- husband in his statement under section 313 of

¶29

the Code of Criminal Procedure stated the same
thing. Whereas accused No.2, the father-in-law,

¶30

as well as accused No.1 - husband stated that
deceased was under treatment of a psychiatrist

¶31

and she was not taken to her parental house at
the time of Diwali, therefore, she was under

¶32

mental stress and while preparing tea due to
bursting of stove, according to the husband and
father-in-law, the deceased died. Prima facie,
we are not convinced with these explanations
given by the accused persons. The accused No.3
– mother-in-law was present in the house,
according to the defence witness. She ought to
have been in a position to explain the
circumstances resulting in death of the deceased.

¶33

6)Considering the submissions advanced,
perusal of the record and the reasonings adopted
by the trial Court, we pass following order.

¶34

7)Leave is granted to the State to file
appeal against original accused No.1 – Sunil
Narsing Patil, accused No.2 – Narsing s/o
Vitthalrao Patil and accused No.3 – Shalinibai
w/o Narsing Patil. Leave is refused as regards
original accused No.4 – Madhav s/o Narsing Patil
and accused No.5 Mirabai w/o Pratap Patil.

¶35

8)Appeal is admitted. Action under section
390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken
against the accused 1, 2 and 3. After arresting

¶36

the accused they be released on bail on
furnishing PR of Rs.15000/- each with one surety
in the like amount. The accused shall attend the
trial Court once in a quarter until further
orders. The record and proceedings be sent back.

¶37

9)The Criminal Application No.1849 of 2009

¶38

stands disposed of.

¶39

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶40

rsl/ crapln.1849.2009

The State of Mah v. Sunil Narsing Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Sunil Narsing Patil 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kerba Kundlik Chintare and Others

State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrasen Govind Kanse and Others

Sitaram S/O. Harichandra Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikrant Shriram Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dattatraya Alias Pintu Babbru Bhinge and Anr.

Laxman Pundlik Suvarnkar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.