Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Munjaji Manik Pawar

Bombay HC30 Aug 2010APPLN/1517/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed by State sought leave to appeal against acquittal in Sessions case involving offences under IPC Sections 498A, 302 and 304-B. Court dismissed application finding no perversity in Trial Court reasoning, citing lack of proof regarding dying declaration contents.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no order as to costs. Leave to file appeal denied.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Munjaji… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1517 OF 2010

¶4

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist. Parbhani

¶5

APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Munjaji S/o.Manik Pawar, Age-23 years, Occu-Agril., R/o.Erandeshwar, Taluka Purna, Dist. Parbhani.

¶8

Manik S/o.Madhavrao Pawar, Age-61 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Erandeshwar, Tal. Purna,

¶9

Dist. Parbhani.

¶10

Nilawatibai W/o.Manik Pawar, Age-55 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Erandeshwar, Tal. Purna,

¶11

Dist. Parbhani.

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.P.C.Mayure h/f. Mr.S.S.Rathi, learned A.P.P. for respondent State.

¶14

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND

¶15

A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

¶16

DATE : 30/08/2010

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

This is an application filed by the applicant/State seeking

¶19

¶20

leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 16/01/2010, in Sessions case No.13/2009, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable u/s. 498(A), 302, 304-B r/w. 34 of The I.P.C.

¶21

The pivot of the prosecution against the respondents accused revolves around the evidence of P.W.No. 8 Mohd. Khaja, Special Executive Magistrate in respect of the recording of the dying declaration at Exh.46. The Trial Court found that the possibility of injured Rohini being tutored to give the aforesaid evidence could not be ruled out. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that Rohini, who had sustained 90% burns, was conscious at the time when her statement came to be recorded. It appears that at noon, when the doctor had examined her, he found that Rohini was not in a condition to give her statement, however, subsequently at 2.55 p.m. the Medical Officer opined that Rohini was conscious to give her statement.

¶22

We have heard Shri.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the applicant with whose assistance we have perused the evidence recorded by the Trial Court. We have also perused the deposition of P.W.No.8 Mohd. Khaja, Special Executive Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration. It appears that P.W.No.8 Mohd. Khaja does not refer to the contents of the dying declaration. According to us, in the light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Deorao S/o.Sonbaji Bhalegao and another versus State

¶23

¶24

of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 All MR (Cri) 1921 and Jivan Tulsiram Dhavali and another versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 All MR (Cri) 2018 , and Laxmibai W/o.Maruti Satpute and others versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 182, since the Recording Officer has not proved the contents of the dying declaration at Exh.46, the aforesaid dying declaration could not be made the basis for sustaining the charge u/s. 302 of The I.P.C. In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to justify the grant of admission of leave to file appeal. Application, is being sans merit, is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶25

(A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶26

khs/AUGUST 2010/cri.appl.1517-10

The State of Maharashtra v. Munjaji Manik Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Munjaji Manik Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandlal Arjun Baviskar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudam Babu Shirsat Vs Thethe State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Rama Bhika Rathod Vs the State of Mah

The State of Mah Vs Monohar Mangorao Zond and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Bhimsing Shrishobharam Yadav and Ors.

Sunil Ramdas Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.