Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra through Ganpati Satish Barde v. Shrihari Vithal Bhalekar

Bombay HC16 Aug 2010APPLN/299/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the State sought leave to appeal against an acquittal of a husband accused of cruelty and abetment of suicide. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the lower court's view on evidence contradictions and the reconstructed suicide theory was a possible view and not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed; Leave to file appeal refused; Record sent back.

The State of Maharashtra through Ganpati Satish Barde… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2010

¶4

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. Applicant

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

SHRIHARI VITHAL BHALEKAR.

¶7

Respondent.

¶8

Shri S.D. Kaldate A. P. P. for applicant.

¶9

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

¶10

DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2010.

¶11

...

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard Mr. Kaldate, learned APP for the applicant-state.

¶14

Respondent sole absent, although served.

¶15

This is an application, preferred by the applicant-state

¶16

seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal

¶17

dated 14.10.2009 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,

¶18

¶19

Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.92/2008, acquitting the

¶20

respondent/original accused for the offence p/u/s 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code.

¶21

I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.10.2009 with the assistance of learned APP Mr. Kaldate.

¶22

Respondent/original accused faced the trial for the offence

¶23

p/u/s 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the respondent is the husband of deceased Kausalyabai and allegedly subjected her to cruelty by making unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/from her, for the purchase of motor cycle and for improvement of the

¶24

land, to be brought by her from her parental house, and for non fulfillment thereof, and ultimately since she was fade up with the said

¶25

torture, she allegedly committed suicide by jumping into well in the

¶26

land gat No.277 of village Awadshirpura Tq. Kallam and accordingly alleged respondent instigated and abetted the committal of said

¶27

suicide.

¶28

¶29

To substantiate said charges levelled against the accused,

¶30

prosecution has examined in as much as seven witnesses i.e. PW 1 Ganpati Satish Barde – complainant, PW 2 Janak Narayan Barde, PW 3 Shankar Dnyanoba Hodade, PW 4 Dilip Digambar Patil - panch witness to spot panchnama, PW 5 Kailash Lala Londhe, PW 6 Head constable Ashok Sadashiv Gaikwad and PW 7 Dy. S.P. Dadahari Keshavrao Choure, Investigating Officer. However, out of the said witnesses, two witnesses i.e. PW 4 Dilip and PW 5 Kailash panch witness turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶31

Apparently, it appears that although incident of committal

¶32

of suicide by deceased Kaushalya took place on 14.6.2008, First information Report came to be lodged after delay of three days i.e. on 16.6.2008 and apparently prosecution has not explained said delay satisfactorily.

¶33

On perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial judge has observed that there are number of omissions amounting to

¶34

¶35

contradictions as well as there are significant improvements which go

¶36

to the root of the matter and which hampers the case of the prosecution. Learned trial judge has also not believed the testimony of PW 1 complainant Ganpati as well as PW 3 Shankar, nor believed the testimony of PW 2 Janak. Learned trial judge also observed that PW 1 Ganpati-complainant admitted that there was one steel vessel floating in the well and there was no any construction wall surrounding the well and considering all these admissions and evidence of prosecution witnesses, further observed that the possibility cannot be ruled out that Kaushalya had been to well for fetching water and at that time she slipped into well and died because of drowning therein. Moreover, it is also observed by the learned trial judge that prosecution has examined interested witnesses and due to omissions, improvements, contradictions and infirmities the said testimonies were not accepted by the learned trial judge.

¶37

After analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by

¶38

the learned trial judge is a possible view to be adopted and same does

¶39

not appear to be perverse. Moreover, the reasoning given by learned

¶40

trial judge for arriving at the conclusion that accused is not guilty and

¶41

¶42

consequently, acquitting him also appears to be proper and same

¶43

cannot be faulted with and hence present application deserves to be rejected.

¶44

In the result, present application being sans merit, stands

¶45

dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused.

¶46

Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned

¶47

court.

¶48

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )

¶49

aaa/299.10

The State of Maharashtra through Ganpati Satish Barde v. Shrihari Vithal Bhalekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra through Ganpati Satish Barde v. Shrihari Vithal Bhalekar

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

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagari Sahakari Bank Vs Mohammad Isaq S/O Abdul Rashid

Sarafraj Khan @ Baba Janibhai Alias Shakurkhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalyanrao Devidasrao Wategaonkar Vs Kanchanmala Ramgir Bharati and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Balaji Brahmaji Gunde and Ors.

The State of Mahrashtra Vs Dr Ramdhan Ambadas Thombare and Ors.

Mukesh Ramesh Valvi Vs the State of Maharashtra