The High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dismissed an application for suspension of sentence and bail granted to an appellant convicted of murder who argued against the credibility of the sole eye-witness and medical evidence.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPA] No.453 of 2012 IN
Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2012
[Mutayya Malayya Manikrawtu Vs. State of Mah.]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. N.R. Bhishikar, Adv., for the applicant.
Mr. A.S. Sonare, APP for respondent.
CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND
M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ.
DATE : 16th August, 2012.
01.By this application, the applicant seeks
suspension of the substantive sentence of
imprisonment and his enlargement on bail,
pending the decision of the appeal.
02.The applicant/appellant stands convicted
for an offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that
the applicant had strangulated his wife Padma
on 15th August, 2012. The Trial Court placed
implicit reliance on the testimony of PW 9 �
2
Mahesh, son of both deceased and the applicant,
and, therefore, has convicted and sentenced the
applicant as afore stated.
03.Mr. Bhishikar, learned counsel for the
applicant, has urged before us that in the
light of the medical evidence, particularly
the fact that the strangulation marks were seen
on one side of the neck, the possibility that
the deceased was strangulated is completely
ruled out. It is further urged before us that
based on the evidence of PW 9 � Mahesh, he
cannot be said to be an eye-witness to the
incident.
04.Learned APP has supported the findings
arrived at by the Trial Court, and has urged
for dismissal of this application in view of
existence of strong prima facie material.
05.The submissions advanced before us by the
learned counsel for the applicant pertain to
re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be
done at this stage. Suffice it to state that
the Trial Court has accepted the evidence of PW
9 � Mahesh and has held that his evidence
stands corroborated by the medical evidence.
06.In that light of the matter, therefore,
we are not inclined to accept the plea of the
3
applicant for suspension of the substantive
sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on
bail.
07. Application is accordingly dismissed.
JudgeJudge
|Hedau|
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted during pendency of appeal.
Whether re-appreciation of evidence is permissible at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mutayya Malayya Manikrawtu
State of Mah.
P.V. HARDAS
M.L. TAHALIYANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court