Remanded

The State of Maharashtra v. Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe

Bombay HC7 Sept 2010APPLN/1170/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the State's application for condonation of condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a Sessions Court order. The court examined the allegations of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and the historical relationship between the accused and the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal condoned. Application seeking leave to appeal rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1170 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1169 OF 2010

¶4

The State of Maharashtra
Through : Police Station Officer,
Beed City Tq. District : Beed .. Applicant

¶5

 VERSUS
Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe .. Respondent

¶6

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1169 OF 2010

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant
 VERSUS
Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe .. Respondent

¶8

Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the Applicant-State
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the respondent

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶11

ORAL ORDER:-

¶12

1.By this Application, the State seeks

¶13

condonation of delay of 13 days caused in filing of
the Appeal and the application seeking leave to
Appeal.

¶14

(2) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2

¶15

2. For the reasons stated in the application,

¶16

and having regard to the fact that the delay is of
marginal nature, the Application is allowed and the
delay is condoned by accepting the explanation given
by the applicant-State in paragraph no.2 of the
Application.

¶17

3.So far as the Application seeking leave to
Appeal is concerned, it transpires that in Sessions
Case no. 88 of 2008 original accused no.1 Namdeo was
convicted by the Sessions Court for offence under
section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of
suicide committed by his wife, namely, Sharda.
Still, however, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted
the respondent-Sangeeta who was the original accused
no.2.

¶18

4.Having heard learned APP and learned
Advocate for the respondent, it is amply clear that
the only allegations against the respondent (accused
no.2 Sangeeta) was that she used to instigate the
accused no.1 Namdeo to harass deceased Sharda. It

¶19

(3) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2

¶20

appears that the respondent-Sangeeta is the first
wife of accused no.1 Namdeo whereas deceased Sharda
was his second wife. It is pertinent to notice that
deceased Sharda was working as Lady Homeguard since

¶21

about 1-1/2 year before her death. It is more
probable, therefore, that she was accustomed to rough
and tough life. The evidence on record further
indicates that deceased Sharda was residing in
another house situated in Ganeshnagar locality in a
rented room, whereas the respondent was residing in
Yeshwantnagar locality. The learned Sessions Judge
noticed that there was no direct evidence to indicate

¶22

that the respondent used to instigate her husband to

¶23

harass, trouble and ill-treat the deceased Sharda.
The versions of PW3 Maroti, PW5 Meena and PW 8
Mandabai are rather vague and omnibus. They stated
that the accused no.1 Namdeo used to ill-treat

¶24

deceased Sharda and used to harass her at the say of

¶25

the respondent-Sangeeta. No specific incident of her
instigation was pointed out by them. Even assuming

¶26

that she was in the habit of pouring some mis-
information in the ears of the accused no.1 and was

¶27

(4) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2

¶28

instrumental in the alleged harassment, yet the
litmus test to be satisfied under section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code is not at all satisfied. There is
no intentional aiding, enticement or goading deceased
Sharda by the respondent for the alleged commission
of her suicide.

¶29

5.In this view of the matter, acquittal of the
respondent-Sangeeta need not be interferred with and
the view taken by the Sessions Judge is quite
reasoned and proper. No interference is called for.
The Application seeking leave to Appeal is therefore
rejected and so also the Appeal is disposed of.

¶30

 Sd/-

¶31

 [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]
arp

The State of Maharashtra v. Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar

Narayan Pandharinath Choudhary Vs Shilabai Narayan Choudhary and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal Vs Venkat Tatyaram More and Ors.

Sant Eknath Labour Welfare Education and Charitable Trust Vs Laxman Limba Kirtane

The State of Mah Vs Ravindra Eknath Marathe

Babasaheb Dhondiram Mundhe Vs the State of Mah and Anr.