Partly allowed

Goverdhan S/O Budhaji Ashtekar and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Bramhapuri Distt Chandrapur

Bombay HC8 Aug 2012APPA/489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal, the Division Bench refused bail to the appellant convicted of murder (Sections 302, 201 IPC) but granted it to the two appellants convicted of Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, directing furnishing of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Application partly allowed; sentence of Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 suspended and they are to be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs. 20,000 with sureties.

Goverdhan S/O Budhaji Ashtekar and Others Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPA] No. 489 of 2012 IN

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2012
[Goverdhan Budhaji Ashtekar & two others Vs. State ofMah.]

¶4

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

¶5

Dr. Anjan De, Adv., for the applicants.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for respondent.

¶6

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

¶7

DATE : 08th August, 2012.

¶8

01.This is an application by which the
applicants/appellants seek suspension of the
substantive sentences of imprisonment and their
enlargement on bail, pending the decision of
appeal.

¶9

02.Appellant No.1 � Goverdhan stands

¶10

convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life and

¶11

¶12

RigorousImprisonmentforfiveyears
respectively. The Appellant Nos. 2 � Budhaji
and 3 � Sau. Vacchala are convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 201 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and they are
sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five
years and payment of fine. It further
transpires that the appellant nos. 2 and 3 were
on bail during trial.

¶13

03.The appellants are alleged to have
committed the murders of deceased Sharda and
her daughter Rohini by throttling them and
thereafter setting their dead bodies ablaze.
The Trial Court found on the basis of the
evidence of the Medical Officer that the burns
sustained by Sharda were post-mortem burns,
while the evidence suggested occurrence of
death due to throttling. The Trial Court
accordingly convicted the appellant no.1, as it
came to the conclusion at Paragraph 44 of the
Judgment that apart from the appellant no.1,
there was no possibility of any other accused
committing the murder of Sharda.

¶14

04.Dr. Anjan De, learned counsel for the
appellants, has urged before us that in the
light of medical evidence, particularly the
fragile opinion given by the Medical Officer
that the death was on account of throttling

¶15

¶16

and the burns were post-mortem ones, the
appellants be enlarged on bail, pending the
decision of appeal. It is also urged before us
by the learned counsel for the appellants that
as the appellant nos. 2 and 3 have been awarded
a short term sentence and they were on bail
during trial, there is no likelihood of the
appellant nos. 2 and 3 absconding in the event
of their release on bail.

¶17

05.Learned APP has urged for dismissal of
the application on the ground there is a strong
prima facie case against the appellants.

¶18

06.In so far as the plea of bail of
appellant no.1 is concerned, we are not
inclined to allow the same in the light of the
fact that the medical evidence clearly
indicated that the burns sustained by deceased
Sharda were post-mortem, while the cause of
death is shown to be asphyxia due to throttling
and burns. The submission advanced before us by
the learned counsel for the appellants that the
burns cannot be classified as �post-mortem
burns� is a matter which cannot be decided at
this stage, as it requires re-appreciation of
evidence. In so far as the plea of appellant
nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, we are inclined to
allow this application, as they have been
awarded a short-term sentence, namely rigorous

¶19

¶20

imprisonment for five years.

¶21

07.We accordingly partly allow this
application.

¶22

08.In so far as plea of appellant no.1 is
concerned, this application is dismissed, and
it is allowed in respect of the plea of
appellant nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the
substantive sentence of the appellant nos. 2
and 3 stands suspended and they are directed to
be released on bail on each of the appellants,
namely appellant nos. 2 and 3, furnishing a
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000-00 [rupees
twenty thous and only] with one or two sureties
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court. The appellant nos. 2 and 3, in
addition, shall attend the Police Station,
Bramhapuri, once in three months on first
Saturday of the quarter.

¶23

09.Applicationispartlyallowed
accordingly.

¶24

JudgeJudge

¶25

|Hedau|

¶26

Goverdhan S/O Budhaji Ashtekar and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Bramhapuri Distt Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goverdhan S/O Budhaji Ashtekar and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Bramhapuri Distt Chandrapur

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

Shri Subhash S/O Ganpat Rakhonde Vs State of Maharshtra and Others

Ganesh Hari Khandre and Another Vs Shobha Yadaorao Shikhare and Others

Tulshiram S/O Kejaji Marbade Vs State of Mah. Thru. Pso Nandgaon Khandeshwar

Mohammad Shafique Mohammad Yakub @ Shafique Raja Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary of Home Deptt. and Others

Mrs. Vaishali W/O Vijaykumar Wakase Vs Gitaram S/O Laxman Shewale and One

Laxman S/O Ganpat Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Asegaon Distt Washim and Others