Dismissed

Sheikh Akram S/O Sheikh Shabbir and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nandanwan Nagpur

Bombay HC24 Aug 2012APPA/493/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the criminal application seeking suspension of the substantive sentence and bail pending appeal in a murder case. The Court held that appellate courts cannot interfere with evidence re-appreciation at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and bail dismissed. Leave to file private paper-book within six weeks granted.

Sheikh Akram S/O Sheikh Shabbir and Another Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 appa493.12.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.493 OF 2012 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2012

¶5

(Sheikh Akram s/o Sheikh Shabbir and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Nandanwan, Nagpur)

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. T.A. Mirza, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 24th, 2012.

¶9

By this application, the applicants/ appellants seek suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicants/appellants stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicants/appellants had committed murder of deceased Pappu on 22-8-2010 at about 11-30- a.m. Unfortunately, during the trial, the other witnesses did not support the prosecution and the case, therefore, rested on the solitary testimony of P.W.9-Shyama Gadaliya. After considering the cross-examination of P.W.9-Shyama Gadaliya, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the conviction could be based on the solitary testimony of P.W.9-Shyama Gadaliya as the testimony appeared to the trial Court to be wholly reliable.

¶10

Shri J.M. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the

¶11

2 appa493.12.odt

¶12

applicants/appellants, has urged before us that the evidence of P.W.9-Shyama Gadaliya is extremely artificial and does not inspire confidence of the Court and the trial Court ought not to have placed implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W.9-Shyama Gadaliya.

¶13

Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, has supported the findings arrived at by the trial Court.

¶14

The submissions advanced by Shri J.M. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage and consequently we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and direct enlargement of the applicants/appellants on bail. Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants, further states that the applicants/appellants may be granted leave to file private paper-book.

¶15

We accordingly dismiss this application and grant leave to the applicants/appellants to file private paper-book within six weeks from today.

¶16

On the applicants/appellants filing private paper-book in this Court, necessary orders regarding hearing of the appeal be solicited from the Court.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

pma

Sheikh Akram S/O Sheikh Shabbir and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nandanwan Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheikh Akram S/O Sheikh Shabbir and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nandanwan Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kamptee

Uttam Narayan Ilame, C/159 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Mohd Riyaj Mohd Hussain, C/1950 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt Mantralya, Mumbai and Another

Vijay Ramraoji Manekar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nagpur and Another

Vijay Kisan Nachan Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Jalgaon Jamod Distt Buldhana

Diwakar Madhukarrao Mundane Vs the Collector, Wardha and Ors.