Dismissed

The State of Mah v. Raju Lamuwel Shinde and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2012APPLN/2596/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused persons charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the trial court's finding was not perverse as the eye witness accounts were conflicting and lacked medical corroboration, failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Leave to prefer appeal is refused; Criminal Applications 2596/2012 and 2597/2012 stand disposed off.

The State of Mah Vs Raju Lamuwel Shinde and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.2596/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.2597/2012

¶2

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2596 OF 2012 WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2597 OF 2012

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Raju s/o Lamuwel Shinde
and others

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

.....

¶10

Shri S.K. Kadam, A.P.P. for applicant/State

¶11

.....

¶12

ORDER (Per U.D. Salvi, J.):

¶13

1.Heard. Perused.

¶14

2.Four days delay in presenting the application
for leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 7.3.2012 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.125/2010 is
condoned for the reasons stated in the said
application.

¶15

3.Merits of the application seeking leave to

¶16

Cri.Appln.No.2596/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.2597/2012

¶17

¶18

prefer an appeal are examined in light of the

¶19

submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and notes of
evidence, which according to the prosecution forms the
basis for proving the charges levelled against the
respondents/ accused.

¶20

4.LearnedA.P.P.submittedthatthe

¶21

respondents/ accused were tried on the charges of
having committed offences punishable under Sections
143, 148, 302 read with Section 149; 323 read with
Section 149; 504 read with Section 149 as well as under
Section 302 read with Section 115 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

¶22

5.To bring home the charges levelled against
the respondents/ accused, learned A.P.P. submitted, the
prosecution had examined 11 witnesses including the
complainant, eye witnesses, panchas, Medical Officers
and the investigating officer. According to the
prosecution, P.W.No.1 Hannabai, P.W.2 Chaya, P.W.3
Manik and P.W.4 Bablu were the eye witnesses who had
testified that the deceased Damyantabai was assaulted
by accused No.1 Raju with axe, accused Nos.2 and 3
with sticks and accused No.4 Mandabai with chilly
powder in the evening of 6.10.2009 and this incident

¶23

Cri.Appln.No.2596/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.2597/2012

¶24

¶25

was preceded by the incident of assault by the
respondents/ accused No.5 to 7 on the deceased
Damyantabai in the morning.

¶26

6.Learned A.P.P. submitted that, the learned

¶27

trial Court committed an error in discarding the
evidence of eye witnesses and did not consider the
evidence of the prosecution in proper perspective.
According to him, the learned trial Court ought to have
considered that the prosecution had succeeded in
proving the guilt of the respondents/ accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

¶28

7.Perusal of the impugned judgment and the

¶29

notes of evidence reveals that the learned trial Court
did consider the entire evidence and gave thought to
the submissions made by the prosecution in context
therewith. Eye witness account clearly projected two
incidences, one which occurred in the morning of
6.10.2009 involving respondents/ accused No.5 to 7 and

¶30

the other in the evening of the same day involving rest
of the respondents/ accused. Obviously, the learned
trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that
none of the accused could be convicted of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 148 of the Indian Penal

¶31

Cri.Appln.No.2596/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.2597/2012

¶32

¶33

Code, 1860 and no conjoint liability for other offences
could be fastened by invoking the provisions of Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶34

8.Learned trial Court was right in rejecting

¶35

the so called eye witness account of P.W.3 Manik for
three good reasons :

¶36

(a)That no other prosecution witness spoke

¶37

about his presence at the time of alleged
incident,

¶38

(b)He testified that the accused Nos.2 to 4

¶39

came to the house of P.W.2 Chaya, and he and
deceased Damyantabai went towards house of P.W.2
Chaya where the incident had taken place.

¶40

(c)He mechanically averred that, thereafter,

¶41

the accused No.1 Raju had given blow of axe on
the head of deceased Damyantabai.

¶42

9.Learned trial Court was also right in

¶43

rejecting the evidence of P.W.4 Bablu. Learned trial
Court observed that P.W.4 Bablu, from his cross-
examination revealed that he went to the spot of
occurrence after the deceased fell down and, therefore,
he had no opportunity to see as to who had given the

¶44

Cri.Appln.No.2596/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.2597/2012

¶45

¶46

blow to her more particularly in the failing light of
evening time.

¶47

10.Observations made by the learned trial Court
at para 29 of the judgment revealed the mind of the
learned trial Court and as such, is quoted
hereinbelow :-

¶48

“P.W.1 to 4 are the highly interested
witnesses. There is no medical evidence
to support the case of the prosecution
that P.W.1 Hanna has sustained the
injuries in the alleged incident and
P.W.2 Chhaya also sustained the injuries
on account of the chilly powder alleged
to have been thrown in her eyes by
accused Mandabai. The name of P.W.3
Manik is neither mentioned in the
complaint Exh. 46 nor P.W. Hanna and
Chaya deposed about his presence at the
time of alleged incident. He has not
stated anything about role played by
accused Balu and Sham though according
to him they were armed with sticks.
P.W.4 Bablu has simply deposed about the
role played by accused Raju and even he
has not deposed about the presence of
accused No.2 to 4 at the time of alleged
incident. His statement was also
recorded 15 days after the incident.
The I.O. has not explained as to why his
statement recorded belatedly. P.W.
Hanna and P.W. Chaya have deposed about
only one blow of axe given by accused
Raju on the head of deceased
Damyantabai. However, the medical
evidence on record speaks about two
blows on the head and another blow as
stated by the medical officers caused by
hard and blunt object like sticks. Thus
the only inference could be drawn that
the prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 are not

¶49

Cri.Appln.No.2596/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.2597/2012

¶50

¶51

telling the whole truth but they are
suppressing the material facts. The
same is also evident from the fact that
the complaint is delayed in this case.”

¶52

11.Submissions made by learned A.P.P. do not

¶53

persuade us to hold that the conclusions drawn by the
learned trial Court are perverse and only conclusion of
the guilt of the respondents/ accused could have
reasonably been drawn from the evidence on record
without admitting any other view. Hence, leave to
appeal is refused. Criminal Application Nos.2596/2012
and 2597/2012 stand disposed off accordingly.

¶54

fmp/cri2596.12

The State of Mah v. Raju Lamuwel Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Raju Lamuwel Shinde and Ors.

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

Raju Dadarao Mhaslekar Vs the State of Mah

Rajkumar Omprakash Basin Vs State of Maha

The State of Mah Vs Kalpesh Kailash Rasoda and Ors.

Manish Vaijinath Kawale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Paramjeet Babulal Saluja @ Tillu Shet and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mohammad Abyub Mohammad Makarani and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.