The High Court dismissed the applicant-State's application seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the original accused no. 3 who was found guilty of murder under Sections 302/34 IPC during trial.
Application dismissed; leave to file appeal refused.
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
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APPA) No. 754 of 2012 The State of Maharashtra v. Sarjerao Gomkar
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr T. A. Mirza, APP for applicant-State Mr C.H. Jaltare, Adv for respondent Coram : P. V. HARDAS AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ Dated : 17th October 2012
2
three persons assaulting deceased Keshaorao and, therefore, he increased the speed of his motor-cycle, but by the time he reached at the scene of offence, assailants had fled away and he saw respondent Sarjerao running towards Shivapur-Umrer Road. In cross-examination in paragraph 16, an omission is elicited that he had not stated to the police at the time of filing of report that original accused no. 3 Sarjerao ran towards Shivapur-Umrer Road. Moreover, at paragraph 13 of his cross-examination it has been elicited that one Rupesh Gajbhiye was autorickshaw driver in whose auto-rickshaw injured Keshaorao was taken to hospital. This witness further admits that said Rupesh Gajbhiye had asked him as to what had happened to Keshaorao and this witness had informed him that “someone” had assaulted Keshaorao. P. W. 4 Gangadhar also does not fare any better in the cross-examination. No doubt, he stated that he had seen three persons viz. the accused assaulting deceased Keshaorao, but in his cross-examination, he has admitted as true that because of bright sunlight, he could not see the assailants properly and, therefore, had not stated to the police the features of the assailants in his previous statement. Moreover, contradiction at portion mark “A” was duly elicited and proved that he had stated in his previous statement that he does not know who the assailants were.
3
Court extended benefit of doubt to original accused no.3 and concluded and acquitted him.
JUDGE
JUDGE
joshi
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the additional sessions judge's order of acquittal despite weaknesses in prosecution witness testimony and cross-examination contradictions.
The State of Maharashtra
Sarjerao Maroti Gomkar
P. V. Hardas
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
