Dismissed

Ranjana @ Changuna Prakash Sonawane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Aug 2012APPA/96/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous application, filed by convicted appellants challenging their conviction and sentence for murder and attempt to Muhammad, was dismissed. The court held that there was no case for bail citing insufficient grounds for variances from the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Application as regards Applicant No.1 dismissed. Application regarding second and third Applicants dismissed on merits. No bail granted.

Ranjana @ Changuna Prakash Sonawane and Ors. Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln-96/12

¶2

¶3

asmita

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1480 OF 2011

¶6

1. Ranjana @ Changuna Prakash Sonawane 2. Prakash Sakharam Sonawane

¶7

3. Sachin Prakash Sonawane

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

V/s.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Mr Kuldeep S. Patil i/b Mr Prashant M.Patil for Applicants. Mrs S.K.Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the State.

¶13

CORAM : A.S.OKA & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 14th August, 2012.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants/Accused who

¶17

have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 R/w 34 as well as section 201 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, the Applicants have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.

¶18

At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants stated

¶19

that he is not pressing the application as far as the Applicant No.1 is concerned.

¶20

Cri.Appln-96/12

¶21

¶22

asmita

¶23

On earlier occasion, an argument was made that there is no one to look after a minor daughter of the deceased and Applicant No.3. Therefore, this Court had called for the report from the concerned police Officer. Today, report dated 3^rd August, 2012 signed by the Police Inspector of Talegaon Dabhade Police Station is tendered across the bar. Statement of the maternal aunt of the Applicant No.3 has been recorded in which she has stated that from the age of six months, she has been looking after the daughter of the deceased and Applicant No.3. In view of the said report, the ground that there is no one to look after the daughter of Applicant No.3 cannot be accepted.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the only evidence against Applicant Nos.2 and 3 is of alleged recovery of the clothes smelling kerosene and the report of the Chemical Analyser showing that there was trace of kerosene on the clothes. He submitted that panchanama does not disclose that there was smell of kerosene emanating from the said clothes. He submitted that there is absolutely no evidence as against the Applicant Nos.2 and 3. He, therefore, submitted that a case is made out for the Applicant Nos.2 and 3 for enlarging on bail.

¶25

The allegation against the Applicants is of committing murder of one Sheetal who was the wife of third Applicant. The first informant is the brother of the deceased. On 11^th February, 2007, at 11.30 a.m, Applicant No.3 informed

¶26

3 Cri.Appln-96/12

¶27

asmita

¶28

one Dhondiba Shinde that the deceased Sheetal had subjected herself to immolation and she had died. On post mortem, it was found that deceased suffered 90% burn injuries. However, it was noted that there were injuries on the skull of the deceased. In fact, it appears that the death occurred due to fracture of skull. It was found that there was laceration to brain and congested menengia.

¶29

The trial Court found that the deceased was residing at the house of the Applicants and that the death occurred in the house. The trial Court found that the defence of alibi taken by the accused Nos.2 and 3 was not established. Accused No.3 came out with the case that he had been to his shop as usual at the time of the incident. Accused No.2 came out with the case that he was attending a marriage ceremony of his relative. The trial Court found that Applicant No.3 did not establish the fact by leading evidence as to when he had been to the shop in the morning. The second Applicant did not produce the relevant marriage invitation card. Hence the said defence has been rejected by the trial Court and the Court invoked section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is held that the Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were under obligation to explain as to how deceased sustained injury to head resulting in to fracture of skull and 90% burn injuries.

¶30

In view of the fact that the defence of the accused has been disbelieved by the trial Court and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the trial Court is justified in

¶31

asmita 4 Cri.Appln-96/12

¶32

invoking section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, at this stage, the argument regarding recovery of the clothes smelling kerosene recedes to the background.

¶33

No case is made out for enlarging the second and third Applicants on bail. Hence, we pass the following order.

¶34

Application as regards Applicant No.1 is dismissed, as not pressed. Application as regards second and third Applicants is dismissed on

¶35

merits.

¶36

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J) ( A.S.OKA , J .)

Ranjana @ Changuna Prakash Sonawane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana @ Changuna Prakash Sonawane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Chandrakant Mangilal Samdadia and Ors.

Jaiganesh Silvraj Devendra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Marutirao Kalmetkar Vs Narcotic Control Bureau and Anr.

Dhanaji Ramchandra Surwase Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bhausaheb Punja Mahale and Anr.

Dhanaji Ramchandra Surwase Vs the State of Maharashtra