This bench disposed of two criminal appeals and condonation applications arising from a free fight. Finding witnesses hostile and cases without merit, the court dismissed the appeals and applications.
Dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, applications for leave to appeal, and both appeals.
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 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application No. 700 of 2010
IN
Criminal Application No. of 2010 IN
Criminal Appeal No. of 2010
[State of Mah. Vs. Murlidhar son of Kisan Karmankar &
others]
With Criminal Application No.701 of 2010 IN
Criminal Application No. of 2010
IN
Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Pramanik Ganpat Dambhare & others]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Criminal Application Nos. 700 & 701 both of 2010 :
Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for applicant.
-----
CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 02nd December, 2010.
1.These two applications for condonation
of delay along with applications for leave to
appeal and appeals have come up for admission-
hearing.
2. This Court has considered merits of
2
each case instead of mechanically sending notice
on applications for condonation of delay.
3.Therefore, we have heard learned APP
Mr. T.A. Mirza. Perused the judgments impugned
and oral evidence.
4.These are two cross-cases. The Sessions
Case No. 71 of 2009 arises out of charge for
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
149, 323 read with Sections 149 and 324 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Sessions
Case No. 91 of 2007 pertains to charge for
offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 325
read with Sections 149, 323, read with Sections
149 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code.
5.It has come in evidence that it was a
case of free fight and resultant cross-cases.
6.Witnesses, who are amongst injured in
cross-cases, have turned hostile.
7.It is obvious that parties, who have
settled their scores in a free fight, must have
settled outside the Court directly or
indirectly, leading to all witnesses� turning
hostile.
8. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that considering omissions and
3
contradictions, it is unworthy to rely upon the
witnesses, on whose testimonies the prosecution
is trying to base its case.
9.Considering the facts of the matter,
both appeals have no merits. Thus, the State is
not entitled to press for leave to appeal.
10.In this background, it would be futile
to spend any further time and energy on these
cases.
11.The applications for condonation of
delay, therefore, do not deserve any further
exercise.
12.Considering merits of the mater,
applications for condonation of delay and
applications for leave to appeal as well as both
appeals are dismissed.
JudgeJudge
|Hedau|
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should admit appeals filed with condonation of delay in cross-cases arising from a free fight.
Whether the appeals have merit given the turning hostile of witnesses and the Sessions Judge's finding that testimonies are unworthy of reliance.
Whether the applications for condonation of delay and leave to appeal deserve further exercise.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Mah.
Murlidhar son of Kisan Karmankar & others
Pramanik Ganpat Dambhare & others
A.H. Joshi
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court