高邦刑事法院拒绝国家邦向对谋杀案唯一被告人被无罪释放判决提出上诉的许可。法院认定基于间接证据的案件基于怀疑，未建立达到令人满意标准的事实。
Leave to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3010 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra (Through Vita Police Station). ... ... ... Applicant. (Orig. Complainant) Versus Goakhnath Yadavrao Kadam, ) Age 45 Yrs., Occ: Agriculture, ) Resident Shelakbav, Tal. ) Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli. ) ... ... ... Respondent. (Orig. Accused.) Smt. U. V. Kejriwal, APP for the Applicant / State. None for the Respondent. CORAM : J. N. PATEL and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH NOVEMBER,2009.
Smt. U. V. Kejriwal, APP for the Applicant / State. None for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT (Per A.A.Sayed, J.) :
2
the nephew of the complainant Vijay Vithoba Kadam (PW-4). Deceased Shashikant was doing labour work and sometimes he used to work on the sand truck of one Jagdale and tractor of the accused Gorakhnath Kadam. On 16th August, 2005, the complainant went to Village Wangi and after completing his work, while returning to his house at about 5.00 p.m., he had seen his nephew the deceased Shashikant and Ramchandra Nivrutti Kadam, in front of tyre puncture repairing shop at S. T. Stand Wangi. On the next day i.e. on 17th August, 2005 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, one Mr. Dattatraya Hindurao Patil, who is a son of Police Patil, came to the house of the complainant and informed him that one Ramchandra Shankar Mohite from Wangi informed him on telephone that nephew of the complainant, i.e. the deceased Shashikant, was lying dead on the road near Shirgaon Fata. Therefore, the complainant, his brother Bhanudas, nephew Shankar and others went to the spot near Shirgaon Fata. They saw the body of deceased Shashikant with bleeding injuries on left side of his head near the ear and on left shoulder. They also noticed one iron wheel spanner, shoes and tobacco bag were lying at some distance near the body. Accordingly, the complainant lodged oral complaint with Vita Police Station alleging that some unknown person had committed murder of deceased Shashikant by causing injury on his head by hard weapon on Bhalavani to Shirgaon Road. On the basis of the said complaint, offence under Section 302 of
3
the Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide C. R. No. 127 of 2005 at Vita Police Station.
4
Gorakhnath might have murdered the deceased Shashikant. On the basis of this complaint of the complainant, the accused Gorakhnath came to be arrested on 20th August, 2005.
5
the accused Gorakhnath had any altercation or previous enmity. There is no motive alleged to the murder of the deceased Shashikant. In the panchnama, it is not stated that there was any blood stain on the seized spanner nor was the spanner was sent for examination of any blood stains. No Medical Officer been examined to prove that the injury on the head of deceased Shashikant was possible by the seized spanner which resulted in his death. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the injury on the person of the deceased Shashikant was caused by the spanner. Merely because the deceased Shashikant and the accused Gorakhnath were together for one and half hour before the accused came to PW 3 Vithal Deshmukh’s house would not mean that the accused Gorakhnath was responsible for the death of the deceased. The learned trial Court has, in our opinion, rightly observed that the possibility and probability of the deceased sustaining head injury in a hit and run motor vehicle accident resulting into his death cannot be ruled out. Pertinently, in his first statement the complainant has mentioned “unknown person” and there is no mention of the name of the accused. The entire chain of circumstances is not established in the evidence so as to point to the guilt of the accused Gorakhnath beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution is based on suspicion and merely because the accused
was last seen with the deceased and in absence of any motive being alleged, it does not lead to the irresistible inference that the accused Gorakhnath
6
committed murder of the deceased Shashikant.
Sd/-
(J. N. PATEL, J.) Sd/-
(A. A. SAYED, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has made out a case to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a murder case.
Whether the nocturnal return of the accused alone to the witness's house after the alleged victims went to sleep raises irresistible inference of guilt.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Goakhnath Yadavrao Kadam
J. N. Patel
A. A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
