Dismissed

Siddharth S/O Sitaramji Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Narkhed Distt Nagpur

Bombay HC18 Jul 2012APPA/445/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal application by a convicted appellant seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal for alleged murder. The High Court dismissed the application, ruling that re-appreciation of evidence was not permissible at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail dismissed; liberty granted to file private paper-book within six weeks.

Siddharth S/O Sitaramji Shinde Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPA] No. 445 of 2012 IN

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2012
[Siddharth Sitaramji Shinde Vs. State of Mah.]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, Adv., for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for respondent.

¶6

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND
M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 18th July, 2012.

¶8

Bythisapplication,the
applicant/appellant seeks suspension of the
substantive sentence of imprisonment and
enlargement on bail, pending the decision of
appeal.

¶9

Appellant is alleged to have killed

¶10

¶11

Natthu on 19th January, 2011 at about 11.30
p.m., by pushing and drowning him in the well.

¶12

Theprosecutionreliesuponthe
testimonies of three eye-witnesses, namely PW 1
� Vinayak Choudhary, PW 3 � Shrawan Choudhary
and PW 4 � Babarao Tidgam. The Trial Court has
accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses and
has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
afore stated, however, acquitted original
accused no.2.

¶13

We have heard Mr. Wasnik, learned counsel
for the applicant, who has urged before us that
the evidence of the three eye-witnesses is
extremely doubtful in the light of the fact
that the dead body of deceased Natthu was not
found in the well till early morning of the
next day and consequently the offence was
registered thereafter. It is also urged before
that it is extremely doubtful if the eye-
witnesses had, in fact, witnessed the incident.

¶14

Learned APP has urged before us that
prima facie a case has been made out against
the applicant and the Trial Court has accepted
the evidence of the eye-witnesses and
consequently this Court would not re-appreciate
the evidence at this stage.

¶15

¶16

Submissions advanced before us by the
learned counsel for the applicant pertain to
re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be
done this stage. Suffice it to state that
there is prima facie material against the
applicant involving him in the commission of
offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has accepted
the evidence of the eye-witnesses and has
convicted the applicant. Additionally, we find
that the applicant was not on bail during
trial.Consequently,wedismissthis
application.

¶17

At this stage, learned counsel for the
applicant prays that he may be granted liberty
to file a private paper-book. Accordingly we
permit the appellant to file a private paper-
book within six weeks from today.

¶18

Judge Judge

¶19

|Hedau|

Siddharth S/O Sitaramji Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Narkhed Distt Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth S/O Sitaramji Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Narkhed Distt Nagpur

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

Rajkumar Baburao Lade and 9 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thru. P.S.O.

Moreshwar S/O Tanbaji Vaidya Vs State of Mah. Thru. P.S.O.

Butibori Manufacturers Association Thr. Its Honorary Secty. Hs Ambaselkar and Ors. Vs the National Highway Auth. of India Thr. Its Chairman and Ors.

Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari, C/3322 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Deptt Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Wasudeo Mahadev Tejne, C/6773 Vs Dig Prisons (East) Nagpur and Another

Nikhil S/O Vasant Ingole Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Police Station Officer