Allowed

Sachin Maruti Wakchaure v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC1 Feb 2012APPLN/25/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for murder and cruelty by husband, the single judge observed that contradictory dying declarations and witness statements created reasonable doubt. The case was held to be borderline, and bail was granted pursuant. The applicant was to furnish personal bond and surety.

What did the court decide?

Clarified as an application declared issue of notice on equivalence; applicant released on bail on personal bond and surety of Rs. 25,000/-

Sachin Maruti Wakchaure Vs the State of Mah — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

crap25.12

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2012

¶5

Sachin Maruti Wakchaure ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, advocate for applicant Shri S.B.Pulkundwar, A.P.P. for respondent

¶7

CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.

¶8

DATED : 01.02.2012.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

This is an application for bail.

¶11

The accused has been arrested in Crime No. I-123/11 by the Akole police station, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The applicant has urged in support of his case on the following grounds :-

¶13

(A) The applicant is innocent & has been

¶14

¶15

crap25.12

¶16

implicated on the basis of the 2nd DD (i.e. FIR dated 16.10.2011) which is patently an outcome of tutoring & brain-washing by the parents of his wife Suvarna.

¶17

(B) Suvarna, in her first DD dated 13.10.2011 to a Naib Tehsildar, has stated there was a quarrel over a small issue between her & her husband & that she poured kerosene & ignited herself. Further, that her husband (i.e. applicant) put out the flames with ‘Chaddar’ & a neighbour (Shri Hase) took her to the hospital. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’ is the typed copy of 1st DD dated 13.10.2011.

¶18

(C) The 2 DDs are starkly inconsistent. It is significant to note that the marriage is more than 10 years old. In the 1st DD, there is a reference to frequent ‘quarrels’ between the couple over trifling reasons. The 2nd DD also refers to ‘frequent quarrels’, but with the addition that the husband would always beat her. Details of the alleged cruelty are conspicuously absent in both DDs. So, the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is prima facie not made out.

¶19

(D) It is pertinent to note that the 2nd DD/FIR does not disclose that Suvarna was pressurised by her husband to disclose about self-inflicted burns in the 1st DD.

¶20

(E) The attempt to involve her husband’s family members clearly suggest tutoring.

¶21

(F) The applicant also got burnt while extinguishing the fire on his wife & was treated. He & his parents have borne all the hospital expenses for his wife’s treatment.

¶22

Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘D’ collectively is the copy of Medical Certificate of applicant & Hospital Bills.

¶23

(G) The brother & parents of the applicant were granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide common order dated 25.11.2011 in Criminal Applications

¶24

¶25

crap25.12

¶26

No. 4938 & 4943/2011.

¶27

Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘E’ is the copy of common order dated 25.11.2011 in Criminal Applications No. 4938 & 4943/2011 passed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶28

(H) The applicant is in jail for more than 90 days. He is a teacher since last 7 years at Prajakta Secondary School, Dhamanvan, Tq. Akole & would not abscond if granted bail. He has 2 minor children to look after.

¶29

(quoted from page nos.3 and 4 of the application)

¶30

The Magistrate was requisitioned for recording the second dying declaration. The fact of dying declaration being recorded earlier was thus the matter of his knowledge. He did not make efforts to explore any information as to the reason why Suvarna wanted to give second dying declaration or the circumstances in which first dying declaration was given by her.

¶31

Suvarna claimed that her neighbourer Rajendra Hase took her to the hospital. The charge sheet accompanies the statement of Rajendra Hase. He states that the applicant took her in the jeep to the hospital at Akole and as the children were alone at house, the applicant requested Hase to take Suvarna to the hospital, because his children were alone at home.

¶32

Rajendra Hase had taken Suvarna to the hospital and the distance between Akole and Sangamner was about 26 Kms. Rajendra does not express that Suvarna told him any reason of fire or the allegation that her husband set her on fire.

¶33

Learned A.P.P. is not able to answer the circumstances in which

¶34

4crap25.12

¶35

the second dying declaration was recorded. Moreover, in the background that there are two dying declarations and the statement of Rajendra Hase recorded by the investigating officer discloses certain circumstances, leaves room for doubt as to the involvement of the accused in the homicidal death.

¶36

8 Admittedly the marriage is 10 years old, the couple had two children and there used to be bickering usually cannot be lost sight.

¶37

9.. In this background, particularly the existence of two contradictory declarations and the statement of Rajendra Hase, the case of the prosecution that the accused is responsible for homicidal death seems to be a border line case.

¶38

In the result, applicant is entitled for bail.

¶39

The application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

¶40

dbm/crap25.12

Sachin Maruti Wakchaure v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Maruti Wakchaure v. the State of Mah

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

Sadashiv Dadarao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhananjay Shantaram Changan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Dattu Netke Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shaikh Jainodin Shaikh Bashiroddin and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Amol Jagan Kadam Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Yogesh Prakash Patil Vs the Ste of Maharshtra