Avinash Ashok Rokade Vs The State of Maharashtra

cr appln 4778-10.doc

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4778 OF 2010

¶5

Avinash Ashok Rokade

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Vs

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Omprakash Pandey i/b M/s. Pandey & Co for the Applicant
Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State

¶10

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶11

DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.Heard learned advocate for the applicant-original
accused no. 1 and learned APP for the State.

¶14

2.The applicant is seeking quashing of FIR I-42/2010 of
Nasik Taluka Police Station. The said case is under Sections
307 and 325 read with 34 of IPC.

¶15

3.Learned advocate for the applicant contended that no
case is made out under Sections 307 or 325 of IPC and he has
drawn my attention to the medical certificates of two injured
persons i.e the complainant- Parashram Gore and Lahanu Gore.

¶16

1

¶17

cr appln 4778-10.doc

¶18

4.In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it
will be necessary to briefly state the facts of this case.
The facts of this case as revealed from the FIR are that
Parashram Gore was the sarpanch of Village Chandshi. On 28th
August 2010 at about 8.30, he received telephone call from
Chandshi village that some dispute was going on between Mohan
Kenge and Avinash Rokade i.e the applicant, hence he went to
the village on his motor cycle. He found crowd gathered near
the Maruti temple. He saw the applicant along with three
other persons i.e Vinod Sadu Rokade, Babu Sadu Rokade and
Rakesh Pandit Shirsat were assaulting Mohan Kenge. When the
complainant intervened, the accused persons who were in
intoxicated condition got annoyed. The applicant assaulted
the complainant on his head with sword due to which the
complainant sustained bleeding injury. The other accused
also assaulted the complainant on his thigh and backside by
stick of spade. Lahanu Gore who had also intervened was
assaulted by the accused on his head and backside by wooden
stick.

¶19

5.Learned advocate for the applicant drew my attention to
the injury certificate of Parshram Gore and Lahanu Gore which
were issued by the Civil hospital. The certificate issued to
Parshram shows that he has sustained two injuries, one is
abrasion over the right chest and second is contusion.

¶20

2

¶21

cr appln 4778-10.doc

¶22

However, the said certificate is illegible and it is not
possible to make out the exact injury stated in the said
certificate. As far as Lahanu Gore is concerned, the first
injury is contusion over right forearm and the second injury
is contusion and abrasion to his right shoulder. However,
the prosecution is also relying on the certificate which is
issued by Leelavati hospital which shows that the complainant
was admitted in the hospital on 29th August 2010 at 11.30 am
and he was discharged on 3rd September 2010 at 1.00 pm. The
history given was that of assault and three injuries are
mentioned in the said certificate i.e 4" CLW already sutured
wound, 3 & 1/2" CLW already sutured wound on the left
parietal region and 2" CLW already sutured wound on the left
occipital region. This certificate clearly shows that
Parshram has sustained injuries on the head which are
grievous in nature. It is consistent with the statement of
Parshram and the role attributed by him to the applicant.

¶23

6.As far as Lahanu Gore is concerned, reliance is placed
by the prosecution on the medical certificate which shows
that he was admitted in hospital on 29th August 2010 at 11.30
am with history of assault and he was discharged on 3rd
September 2010. As to what importance is to be given to the
certificate issued by the private hospital is an aspect which
can only be gone at the time of the trial after the evidence

¶24

3

¶25

cr appln 4778-10.doc

¶26

is led. The statement of the complainant shows that he was
assaulted on the head with sword by the applicant. Medical
certificate shows injuries on the head. Looking to this
fact, prima facie case is made out under Section 307 of IPC,
hence, no case is made out for quashing the FIR.

¶27

7. Application is rejected.

¶28

8.The trial Court shall not be influenced by any
observations in this order while deciding the bail
application or the trial.

¶29

 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶30

4

¶31

cr appln 4778-10.doc

¶32

5

Avinash Ashok Rokade v. The State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Ashok Rokade v. The State of Maharashtra

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

Om Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Uchagaon Phata Kala Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anjuman Mussa Sheikh Vs Rahul Shivling Shethe and Anr.

The State of Maharashta Vs Jitendra Baburao More and Anr.

Rajendra Vitthal Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Vitthal Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.