Partly allowed

State of Maharashtra v. Chandrasen Govind Kanse and Others

Bombay HC22 Sept 2009APPLN/2118/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal court reviewed the evidence regarding murder and assault. It found the prosecution failed to establish the case against most accused persons for abetment but found the acquittal of three original accused against whom a specific charge was framed was not convincing. Leave to appeal was denied for accused nos. 4 to 13 and granted for accused nos. 1 to 3.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal granted against accused nos. 1 to 3; leave to file appeal rejected against accused nos. 4 to 13.

State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrasen Govind Kanse… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2118 OF 2009

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Chandrasen Govind Kanse & ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Shri K.B.Choudhary A.P.P. for the applicant

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL

¶12

AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 22^nd September, 2009

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

1 Heard Shri K.B.Choudhary, learned A.P.P. for the applicant.

¶16

2 Initially charge was framed against 13 accused persons

¶17

for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302 of the Indian

¶18

¶19

Penal Code and separate charge for offence punishable under Section 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Osmanabad framed charge against original accused nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

3 We have perused the original record and proceedings, more particularly the statements of eye witnesses. We have perused the injury certificate and postmortem report. We find that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was an unlawful assembly formed by 13 original accused with a definite object to commit murder of Mohammed and caused injuries to PW3 Ahmed Shaikh. The incident is in two parts. Firstly at about 3.00 p.m. On 7.6.1999, the prosecution alleges that at that time the accused persons came with deadly weapons to demolish the house of PW1 Papa Beg, but we do not notice any conclusive and clinching evidence that the accused persons allegedly used the weapons or assaulted anybody at that time.

¶21

4 Secondly, at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day, the prosecution alleges that original accused nos. 1 to 3 came in a jeep from Osmanabad to village Shiradhon. Papa Beg was preparing for filing the complaint to police. The deceased inquired

¶22

¶23

with accused nos. 1 to 3 as to why they had demolished the house of a poor person. On that asking, original accused no.1 Chandersen took out knife and assaulted deceased. He even assaulted PW3 Ahmed Shaikh. The deceased was taken to Hospital and subsequently he died.

¶24

5 We have considered the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. Prima facie, we are not convinced regarding the acquittal of accused nos. 1 to 3 against whom specific charge was framed.

¶25

6 We do not find any convincing and conclusive good evidence against rest of the accused persons for convicting and sentencing them for penal offence with an aid of Section 149 or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has failed to establish case against rest of the accused persons than original accused no. 1 to 3.

¶26

7 We, therefore, reject leave to file appeal as sought by the State against accused nos. 4 to 13. The leave to file appeal against accused nos. 1 to 3 is granted to the State.

¶27

8 Appeal admitted. Action under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code be taken. If the accused are arrested, they be released on their furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with

¶28

¶29

one surety in the like amount. The accused shall attend the concerned police station once in a quarter until further orders.

¶30

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

¶31

dbm/crap2118.09

State of Maharashtra v. Chandrasen Govind Kanse and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Chandrasen Govind Kanse and Others

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kanha Ramu Naik Rathod and Ors.

Ginaji @Gnyandeo Haribhau Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Tanaji Sadashiv Dharmadhikari Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kerba Kundlik Chintare and Others

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

David Bhagwanrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.