Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sunil @ Balu Kondiba Bhandirge and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2011APPLN/1330/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents. The court held that the trial judge correctly refused to believe discrepant evidence from eye-witnesses regarding the nature of injuries and weapons involved in an assault.

What did the court decide?

Leaders in appeal against acquittal refused; Criminal Application dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil @ Balu Kondiba… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 APPLN-1330.10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1330 OF 2010

¶3

The State of Maharashtra.... Applicant
Vs.
Sunil @ Balu Kondiba
Bhandirge & Ors..... Respondents

¶4

Ms V.R. Bhosale, APP, for the
Applicant-State.
Shri Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the
Respondents.

¶5

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

¶6

DATED: JUNE 21, 2011

¶7

P.C:

¶8

This is an application for leave to
file appeal against the acquittal of the
respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the
IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Satara, by setting aside the conviction of the
respondents recorded by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Vaduj. The learned
Judge has observed in para 12 of his judgment
that the three eye-witnesses examined, namely,
the first informant, his wife and his daughter
give a discrepant version about the incident.

¶9

APPLN-1330.10

¶10

¶11

The first informant claimed that he was injured
by a sharp side of the axe whereas his daughter
stated that he was hit with the handle of the
axe. The victim's daughter stated that her
father was assaulted on the left leg but the
medical certificate did not show any injury on
the left leg. She stated that her mother was
assaulted on the thigh and the right leg. There
were no injuries observed by the Medical
Officer on these parts of the body. While three
witnesses stated that two of the respondents
were carrying sickles with them, three
witnesses did not state that the two
respondents were carrying sickles with them.
One of the witnesses states that two of the
respondents were carrying sickles. It cannot be
said that the learned Judge erred in refusing
to believe the discrepant evidence of the
incident by the eye-witnesses. Leave refused.
Appeal dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra v. Sunil @ Balu Kondiba Bhandirge and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sunil @ Balu Kondiba Bhandirge and Ors.

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

Mukhtar Ahmed Ismail Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Gulab Wayase

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rani Babu Anthony and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar @ Rajendra Sakharam Walekar

Ashok Kisan Navale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Shreepati Bhise Vs Ashok Kisan Navale and Ors.