Dismissed

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kamptee

Bombay HC23 Aug 2012APPA/497/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under criminal appeal No. 147 of 2012 for suspension of sentence and bail. The court refused reappreciation of evidence but permitted filing of a private paper book to resolve a dispute regarding the correct charge section.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with leave to file a private paper book and direction to prefer the appeal.

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 appa497.12.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 497 OF 2012 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2012

¶5

(PURUSHOTTAM RAMCHANDRA DESHBHARTAR...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR.PSO PS KAMPTEE.)

¶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. Ashwin Wasnik, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. M.K.Pathan, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 23, 2012.

¶9

By this application the applicant seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending decision of the appeal.

¶10

The applicant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had committed murder of his brother Rajan on 10.05.2010 at about 6.00 a.m. by assaulting him with a spade. The entire prosecution case primarily rests upon the eyewitness account of P.W. 1 Sunanda and four other eyewitnesses. The evidence of P.W. 1 Sunanda and other eyewitnesses is categorical in the sense that all the eyewitnesses speak about the applicant assaulting deceased Rajan with a spade. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforestated.

¶11

Mr. Wasnik, learned counsel for the applicant, has urged before us that the deceased was admitted in the hospital

¶12

2 appa497.12.odt

¶13

on 10.05.2010 and was discharged on 13.05.2010. The deceased was thereafter re-admitted on 26.05.2010 and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 27.05.2010. It is further urged before us that P.W. 10 Dr. Ritesh Shelkar who had treated the deceased initially did not notice any head injury.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and has urged for dismissal of the application.

¶15

Undisputedly, the applicant was not on bail when the judgment of conviction came to be pronounced, though he had been released on bail earlier, but it appears that his bail was cancelled and he was taken into custody. The submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertains to re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that post mortem report indicates hematoma of about 50 grammes which ultimately led to the death of deceased Rajan. The post mortem report further indicates that there was no head injury as such but there were other injuries which had its indirect effect causing hematoma. In the light of the said evidence, therefore, we are not inclined, at this stage, to reappreciate the evidence and enlarge the applicant on bail, hence, this application deserves to be dismissed.

¶16

However, looking to the evidence available against the applicant and the question whether an offence punishable under Section 304-I or 304-II would be made out instead of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, we permit the applicant to file a private paper book. We further direct the Registry that the appeal be set down for hearing after filing of the private paper book.

¶17

3 appa497.12.odt

¶18

The application is, accordingly, dismissed with leave as stated above.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

RRaut.

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kamptee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kamptee

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

Mukesh Waman Bansod, Convict No C 5939 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Another

Rajni D/O Krushnadatta Ukey Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Deptt of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

The Thakkargram Gruhanirman Housing Society Ltd. Nagpur through Ex Secy. Dd Chichghare and Another Vs Shri Krushna Pancham Khopde and Others

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

Manohar S/O Warlu Jhade C/6774 Vs State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another