Dismissed

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

Bombay HC7 Aug 2012APPA/618/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. The High Court dismissed the application, noting the trial court's conviction based on strong circumstantial evidence and deeming re-appreciation of evidence impermissible at this stage. Leave to appeal granted.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed; Leave to appeal to Supreme Court granted.

Tulshiram S/O Kejaji Marbade Vs State of Mah… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

7.8APPA618.12

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 618/12 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2008 Tulshiram Kejaji Marbade .vs. State of Maharashtra

¶5

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

¶6

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant, Mr. M.K. Pathan, A.P.P. for respondent,

¶7

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 7, 2012.

¶8

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

¶9

The appellant stands convicted by the trial Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The trial Court at para 13 of the judgment has reproduced several circumstances against the applicant/appellant. The principal circumstances which have been proved against the appellant are that the appellant had taken the deceased Deoba to his house and had closed the door from inside. Thereafter the dead body of deceased Deoba was found in the house of accused and blood stained axe was seen in the vicinity of the house of the accused. Human blood was detected on the axe upon the examination by the Chemical Analyser and human blood was

¶10

7.8APPA618.12

¶11

¶12

also detected on the clothes of the appellant.

¶13

The trial Court upon appreciation of the aforesaid circumstances came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related and interested witnesses and as such, the trial Court ought not to have placed implicit reliance on their testimony. The learned A.P.P. has supported the findings arrived at by the trial Court.

¶14

The circumstances urged 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 there are several circumstances established on record to justify the conviction of the appellant. We, therefore, find no merit in the present application and the application is dismissed.

¶15

We, however, find that the paper-book in the appeal has been prepared and the appeal is of the year 2008. Since we are already hearing Criminal Appeals of 2008-2009, we direct that this appeal be listed for hearing at its appropriate place on the Board.

¶16

The Criminal Application stands dismissed with directions as stated above.

¶17

Judge J.

¶18

Judge

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

The Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Forest Officer Sironcha Tah Sironcha Vs Bapaiyya S/O Venkayya Guduri

The Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Forest Officer Sironcha Tah Sironcha Vs Bapaiyya S/O Venkayya Guduri

Devanand S/O Galomal Nichwani and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Jaripatka Nagpur

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

Ganesh Hari Khandre and Another Vs Shobha Yadaorao Shikhare and Others

Motiram Pandurang Lathad Vs the State of Maharashtra.