Partly allowed

The State of Mah v. Sandeep Ankush Shikhre and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2009APPLN/2623/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application concerns an appeal in a strangulation case. The High Court rejected the appeal against two respondents (Baburao and Shobhabai) but granted leave to appeal for two other accused persons (Sandeep Shankar Shikhre and Shalanandabai) based on a prima facie case and medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected against Respondents No. 2 (Baburao) and No. 4 (Shobhabai); leave granted for remaining accused No. 1 (Sandeep Shankar Shikhre) and No. 3 (Shalanandabai).

The State of Mah Vs Sandeep Ankush Shikhre 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. 2623 OF 2009

¶4

The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant.
Versus
Sandip Ankush Shikhre
& others ... Respondents.

¶5

Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for the Applicant / State.

¶6

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &
 SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.
 DATE: 14th September 2009

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

1) Heard.

¶9

2) Learned counsel Shri B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶10

3) We have perused the record and proceedings.

¶11

¶12

We find from the evidence and the reasons adopted
by the learned Judge that the respondent No. 2
Baburao and his wife Respondent No. 4 Shobhabai
were residing separately from the other accused
persons. Accused No. 1 Sandeep is husband of
deceased Sunita and Accused No. 3 Shalanandabai
is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

¶13

4)We have perused the medical evidence,
photographs. Medical Officer has stated that, it
was the case of strangulation. Plea of alibi has
been considered and accepted by the trial court.
Plea of alibi was supported by defence witness DW
Kishan who happens to be grand father of the
accused himself.

¶14

circumstances of the case and record and the
reasons recorded by the trial court, we find that
prima-facie case is made out by the State for
admission of the appeal. We also find that the
prosecution has not made out case against the

¶15

¶16

original accused No. 2 Baburao and original
Accused No. 4 Shobhabai.

¶17

6)Appeal is rejected against Origial Accused
No. 2 Baburao and Accused No. 4 Shobhabai.

¶18

7)Leave granted for remaining accused i.e. Ori.
Accused No.1- Sandeep Ankush Shikhre & Ori.
Accused No. 3- Shalandabai.

¶19

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

¶20

sdm/appln.2623.09

The State of Mah v. Sandeep Ankush Shikhre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Sandeep Ankush Shikhre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhabai Lahanu Purekar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar Vs State of Mah

Dr. Madhumati W/O. Prabhakar Ranade Vs the District Collector and District Appropriate Official Tribunal Ahmednagar and Ors.

Reshma Manoj Agrawal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhausaheb Sambhaji Kamble Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bapurao Narhari Sontakke Vs the State of Mah