Dismissed

State of Maharashtra v. Krishnat Shankar Kharade

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012APPLN/33/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for leave to appeal against acquittal of a husband accused under Sections 306, 498A, and 506 IPC for the death of his wife and son. The court refused leave, accepting the Sessions Judge's view that there was no evidence to support the claim of demand for dowry and that the conviction was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed.

State of Maharashtra Vs Krishnat Shankar Kharade — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Appln 33-12.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2012

¶5

The State of Maharashtra.Applicant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

Krishnat Shankar Kharade.Respondent

¶8

Ms Rajeshree Gadhvi, APP, for the Applicant -
State
None for the Respondent

¶9

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:26TH JULY, 2012

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard the learned APP for the applicant

¶12

– State.

¶13

2. This is an application for leave to file

¶14

an appeal against acquittal of the respondent –
the husband of the victim for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498A & 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. It appears that the victim -
Jayshri was married to the respondent about three
years prior to the incident. The second victim

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Appln 33-12.odt

¶17

was her son, Pranav born of the marriage. On

¶18

28th May, 2009 respondent's mother expired. The
respondent's family members seem to have formed
an impression that the respondent's mother died
because of the victim and therefore, beat her
up. A report was made to the police on 31st May,
2009 which was registered as non-cognizable
case. The report is at Exhibit 24 in the record
of the trial Court. On 17th January, 2010 when
victims were alone in the house, it was alleged
that victim - Jayshri poured kerosene on her
person and set herself on fire. She and her
son, Pranav died due to 100% burn injuries. The
learned Sessions Judge refused to believe the

¶19

evidence about demand of 50,000/- which`

¶20

surfaced after the death. He also noticed from

¶21

the cross examination of the witnesses that in

¶22

fact, the victim and her husband were residing
separately from respondent's mother. The learned
Judge observed that there was no whisper in the
report dated 31st May, 2009 that the respondent

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Appln 33-12.odt

¶25

wanted the victim to give him a divorce. Though
the victim and her son have died in an
unfortunate incident, it cannot be said that
view taken by the learned Magistrate was
perverse or improbable. Leave refused. Appeal
dismissed.

¶26

Page 3 of 3

State of Maharashtra v. Krishnat Shankar Kharade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Krishnat Shankar Kharade

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

Jafar Munshiali Raja Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anthony Feliciano Cardozo and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Jokhulal Chourasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mangal Bhagwan Nale

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Vs Dr. Tukaram Govind Mane and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mangal Bhagwan Nale