Dismissed

State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer v. Balu @ Balkrishna Namdeorao Warthe and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2012APPA/403/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application by the State seeking leave to appeal an acquittal. The Court found the lack of nexus between a dying declaration and the events proved the prosecution failed to prove identity, but maintained the trial Court's decision was a possible view and not perverse. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer Vs Balu @… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

APPA403.2012.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

Criminal Application No. (APPA) 403 of 2012

¶5

The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Akot, Distt. Akola V/s.

¶6

Balu @ Balkrishna Namdeorao Warthe and others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶9

Shri R. S. Nayak, APP for the Applicant

¶10

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS &

¶11

A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 3, 2012.

¶12

This application has been filed by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Akot dated 23^rd December, 2011 in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2010 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The principal evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial was the dying-declaration of Pushpa at Exh.62 recorded by P.W. 5 – Devising Gulakhi Chavan. The trial Court declined to place any reliance on the aforesaid dying-declaration as P.W.5 – Devising

¶13

APPA403.2012.odt

¶14

¶15

Gulakhi Chavan had admitted in his crossexamination that he has not asked the injured lady her name. We have perused the dying-declaration at Exh.62 and we find that in the body of dyingdeclaration, the name of Pushpa is not disclosed. Even beneath the thumb impression, no name of the person whose thumb impression is affixed is mentioned. The trial Court further found that the children of deceased Pushpa namely Shital and Nitesh were present in the house at the time when Pushpa is alleged to have been set ablaze by her husband, were not questioned by the Investigating Officer. The children have not been examined as eye-witnesses to the incident.

¶16

We thus find that there is no nexus between the dying-declaration at Exh. 62 and the statement alleged to have been made by Pushpa on 3^rd August, 2010 at about 08:30 a.m. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the dyingdeclaration at Exh. 62 is the dying-declaration of injured Pushpa.

¶17

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and we have examined the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon its perusal, according to us the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on

¶18

APPA403.2012.odt

¶19

¶20

record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed Leave refused.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Punde

State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer v. Balu @ Balkrishna Namdeorao Warthe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer v. Balu @ Balkrishna Namdeorao Warthe 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

Raju S/O Natthuji Dandale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Wardha (City)

Janrao Khushalrao Bhute C/2739 Vs the Dig Prisons (E) (R) Nagpur and Another

Tareque Aziz Farooqui Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secre. Dept. of Urban Devp. and Town Planning and 5 Ors.

Abdul Wajid @ Gaur Sayeed, C/4267 Vs the Divisional Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Khaja Khan Waris S/O Abed Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the State Excise Department, Washim Divison and Anr.

Mohan Mahavirprasad Kaithwas, Convict No. C 1869 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Secretary, Home Department and Anr.