Dismissed

State of Mah v. Srirang Kallapa Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2009APPLN/969/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad refused leave to file a criminal appeal against the acquittal of respondents accused of various offences. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and that the panchanama was not proved.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal was refused; Criminal Application stands rejected.

State of Mah Vs Srirang Kallapa Chavan 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. 969 OF 2009
In

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPEAL St. No. 206 OF 2009.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

 ... Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Srirang Kallapa Chavan
& Others. ... Respondents.

¶9

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

¶10

Shri. P.S. Chavan Advocate for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &
 SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.

¶12

 DATE: 25th September 2009

¶13

PER COURT : (PER : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,j.)

¶14

1)Heard.

¶15

2)The applicant sought leave to file

¶16

appeal, against the respondents. By judgment and

¶17

order dated 02-12-2000 rendered by the Additional

¶18

Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, the respondents/

¶19

¶20

Accused are acquitted for the offence under
Sections 147,148,341,353,309,427,447,436,504,506
read with 149 as well as under section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code, and under Section 4 of the
Maharashtra Felling of Tress (Regulation Act),
1964, and under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, and under
Section 37(1) (3) punishable under Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

¶21

3)We have perused the impugned judgment as

¶22

well as perused the record and proceedings, and

¶23

oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution. We have also perused the statements
of the accused persons recorded under Section 313

¶24

of Criminal Procedure Code. We have also
considered the submissions of the learned counsel
of the parties.

¶25

4)After considering the rival submissions,

¶26

it appears that the prosecution has failed to
establish identity of the accused persons in the
alleged act which apparently sustains fatal blow

¶27

to the case of the prosecution. Moreover,

¶28

¶29

although the panchanama of place of incident have

¶30

been prepared, the panchanma has not been
proved and the said inaction also hampers the
case of the prosecution.

¶31

5)Having given comprehensive consideration

¶32

to the matter and considering the impugned
judgment and observations made therein and
conclusion drawn therein, we are of the

¶33

considered view that no interference is called
for in the appellate jurisdiction. Hence, leave
to file appeal is refused. Criminal Application
stands rejected.

¶34

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

¶35

sdm/969.09

State of Mah v. Srirang Kallapa Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Mah v. Srirang Kallapa Chavan 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

Abdul Riyaz Abdul Bashid Kazi Vs the State of Mah

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Maharashtra State Wakf Board Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Kashinath Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Abdul Majeed Asadulla Khan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Premchand Gulabchand Nahar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.