This criminal writ petition challenged an order of the First Class Judicial Magistrate refusing to direct reinvestigation into discrepancies in witness statements. The single-judge bench dismissed the petition as no case was made out for interference.
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.
WP No.889/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 889 OF 2010
Sachin Uttam Yetal...Petitioner
vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents
Mr.Mahindra Deshmukh for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.S. Shitole, APP for the State.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : JULY 21, 2010
P.C. :-
1Heard Counsel for the petitioner and APP
for the State.
2The petitioner is challenging order passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadegaon,
dated 28th October, 2009. By the said order, the
learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the PSI of
Chinchni-Wangi Police Station to reinvestigate the
offence regarding the seizure of clothes and also
2 WP No.889/2010
directed him to analyse the blood, if any, found on
these clothes.
3Grievance of the petitioner is that the
Investigating Officer has not recorded the
statements of the witnesses properly and has also
not conducted the investigation in a proper and fair
manner. It is submitted that as a result of lacunas
in the said investigation, the accused are likely to
be benefited in the said trial. He, therefore,
submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have
directed the police to again record the statements
of the witnesses. He invited my attention to the
statements of the father and mother of the
complainant. He submitted that some alterations have
been made in the said statements regarding time and
date when the said incident took place. He submitted
that some discrepancies are found in the statements
of the complainant, his father and his mother. He
submitted that these discrepancies will benefit the
accused at the time of the trial.
3 WP No.889/2010
4The learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State, on the other hand, submitted that the learned
Magistrate has considered the said application and
has given cogent reasons while rejecting the
application for reinvestigation of the entire case.
the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The
apprehension of the applicant that on account of the
discrepancies the accused may be benefited, is
clearly without any basis. At the time of the trial,
the witness can point out the correct facts and
explain the discrepancy, if found, in the said
statement. In my view, no case is made out for
interfering with the order passed by the learned
Magistrate.
6Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Magistrate refusing to direct reinvestigation of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Uttam Yetal
The State of Maharashtra
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court