Partly allowed

Achut Nanabhau Gambhire and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC7 Feb 2012APPLN/570/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench Aurangabad disposed of a bail application filed by applicants convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) arising from a burnt-dead incident. The Court distinguished between co-applicants based on residential separation and evidence strength, rejecting bail for the husband while granting it to the brother-in-law and father-in-law with bond conditions, and permitted a fresh

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Applicants No.2 and No.4 on the furnishing of Personal and Surety Bond of Rs.20,000 each; sentence suspended for them; bail application of Applicant No.1 rejected; Applicant No.3 dire

Achut Nanabhau Gambhire and Ors. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

 cra570.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.570 OF 2012

¶6

IN

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.565 OF 2011

¶8

`1) Achut Nanabhau Gambhire,`
`Age-28 years, Occu:Labour,` `R/o-Mundewadi, Tq-Kaij,` `Dist-Beed,`
`2) Ashok Nanabhau Gambhire,` `Age-34 years, Occu:Labour,` `R/o-As Above,`
`3) Rahibai w/o Nanabhau Gambhire,` `Age-62 years, Occu:Household,` `R/o-As Above,`
`4) Nanabhau Madhav Gambhire,` `Age-64 years, Occu:Labour,` `R/o-As Above,`
`(At present all the Applicants` `are in jail).` `...APPLICANTS.`
`VERSUS`
`The State of Maharashtra,` `Through the Police Inspector,`
`Police Station, Kaij,` `Dist-Beed.` `...RESPONDENTS.`

¶9

 cra570.12

¶10

¶11

...

¶12

 Shri. M.A. Tandale Advocate with Shri. H.M.
 Salve Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondents.
 Shri. S.S. Thombre Advocate for complainant,
 to assist the P.P.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
 DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

1.Heard learned counsel for the respective
parties.

¶17

2.The Applicants were convicted for an

¶18

offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1000/-
(Rupees One Thousand) each, in Sessions Case No.74
of 2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge-2,
Ambajogai, by Judgment and order dated 15th
September, 2011.

¶19

 cra570.12
3

¶20

3.The Applicants preferred Appeal against

¶21

the said Judgment and order. The Appeal was
admitted by this Court. The Applicants preferred
present Application for releasing them on bail,
pending hearing and final disposal of the Appeal.

¶22

4.The Applicant No.3, namely, Rahibai w/o
Nanabhau Gambhire, had applied for bail by filing
Criminal Application No.4477 of 2011. The Division

¶23

Bench of this Court (CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH AND A.M.
THIPSAY, JJ.) had dismissed the said Application
as withdrawn, by passing following order on 19th
December, 2011:

¶24

"1. We have heard learned
counsel Mr. Tandale as well as
learned A.P.P. for some time.
Mr. Tandale seeks liberty to
withdrawthiscriminal
Application.

¶25

2. Criminal Application stands
dismissed as withdrawn."

¶26

¶27

 cra570.12

¶28

5.It would thus, be desirable that the

¶29

Applicant No.3 - Rahibai w/o Nanabhau Gambhire,
would move the same Court of the Honourable
Judges, in case the Applicant No.3 desires to pray
for bail.

¶30

6.Deceased Archana was wife of Applicant

¶31

No.1 - Achut Nanabhau Gambhire. The incident in

¶32

question took place on 6th June, 2010 in the
morning hours of the day. The Applicants were
residing in small house made of Turati grass
(Kood). In the evidence of PW-1 - Sahebrao Gholwe,
he stated before the trial Court that accused

¶33

persons were residing separately in tin-sheet
rooms. According to the witness, house of original
accused No.1 Achut was to Southern side and house

¶34

of accused No.2 Ashok was to Northern side. The
house of accused Nos.3 and 4 was situated to West

¶35

side. The Applicant No.1, according to the
witness, was an agriculturist and the field of

¶36

 cra570.12
5

¶37

accused persons were 2-3 furlong away from their
houses. There is South-North road in front of the
houses of the accused. The houses of the accused
were surrounded by other houses, including
houses of brothers of PW-1.

¶38

7.At the time of incident, according to the

¶39

prosecution witness No.1, he saw that the
Applicants were coming out of the hut of the
deceased. The relations between the deceased and
the husband and her in-laws were strained as
deceased could not bear child. There were
incidents of assault and abuses in the past,
against the deceased by the accused persons.

¶40

8.PW-2 Kalpana is sister of deceased, who

¶41

was 15 years old at the time of deposition. She
too had came out from her residence and reached
the spot and saw that her sister was burnt
extensively.

¶42

 cra570.12
6

¶43

9.Deceased suffered 95% burn injuries and
the cause of death, according to medical officer,
was "due to shock due to 95% burns". The injuries
suffered by the deceased were referred to as
'ante-mortem' by the medical officer.

¶44

10.The learned counsel for the Applicants
submits that considering the spot panchnama and
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

¶45

including PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it could be
considered that the prosecution failed to
establish offence of murder, punishable under the
provisions of Section-302 of the Indian Penal
Code, against the Applicants. Not only the hut of
the Applicants got fired but other houses also got
fired. Fire Brigade vehicles rushed to the spot to
extinguish the fire. The deceased suffered
injuries in the said fire and ultimately succumbed
to the injuries. The counsel submitted that the
Applicants except husband were residing

¶46

separately. There was no reason for the Applicants

¶47

 cra570.12
7

¶48

to cause any bodily harm, injuries to the
deceased. The counsel submitted that the trial
Court acquitted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 435, 436 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶49

11.The learned A.P.P. submits that there is

¶50

strong evidence against the Applicants, in respect
of their involvement in the offence of committing
murder of deceased by setting deceased on fire.
The Applicants were displeased with the deceased
as she could not bear child. The prosecution
witnesses are reliable as they witnessed the
incident of burning and accused persons coming out
of the house. The A.P.P. submitted that
Application filed by the Applicant No.3 - Rahibai
w/o Nanabhau Gambhire, was withdrawn by the
Applicant No.3 and the same came to be dismissed
as withdrawn, on the same set of facts and
evidence.

¶51

 cra570.12
8

¶52

12.We have perused the Record and
Proceedings, relevant portion of depositions of
material witnesses, post-mortem report, spot
panchnama, C.A. report, observations of the trial
Court convicting the accused. From the evidence
placed on record and considering the statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, we do not find that bail Application of
Applicant No.1 - Achut Nanabhau Gambhire deserves
to be considered.

¶53

13.With regard to Applicant No.2 - Ashok
Nanabhau Gambhire and Applicant No.4 - Nanabhau
Madhav Gambhire, i.e. brother-in-law and father-
in-law of deceased, we find that considering the
evidence on record, their Application for bail
deserves consideration. These Applicants were
residing separately from the family of the
deceased, which consists of Applicant No.1 and

¶54

deceased. Considering the nature of evidence
brought on record against Applicant No.2 and

¶55

 cra570.12
9

¶56

Applicant No.4, and the other material
circumstances, their Application deserves to be
considered. Hence we pass following order:

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

(1) Application for bail filed
by Applicant No.1 - Achut
NanabhauGambhirestands
rejected.

¶59

(2) The Application of
Applicant No.2 - Ashok Nanabhau
Gambhire and Applicant No.4 -
Nanabhau Madhav Gambhire is
allowed.Theorderof
substantive sentence imposed on
them, is suspended. Applicant
No.2 - Ashok Nanabhau Gambhire
and Applicant No.4 - Nanabhau
Madhav Gambhire are directed to

¶60

 cra570.12
10

¶61

be released on bail on their
furnishing Personal Bond and
Surety Bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/-(RupeesTwenty
Thousand) each.

¶62

Rahibai w/o Nanabhau Gambhire
is entitled to file fresh

¶63

Application for bail, if she
desires, before the same Court
of the Honourable Judges.

¶64

(4) The Application is
disposed of.

¶65

[T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/FEB12

Achut Nanabhau Gambhire and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achut Nanabhau Gambhire and Ors. 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

Kamlesh Ashrafilal Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prakash Mohan Patil, C.No. 3978 Vs the State of Mah

John Paul Anthony Vs the State of Maharashtra

Barku @ Prakash Waman Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharshtra Vs Bahiru Bhau Bhangare

Kakasaheb Mohiniraj Khatik Vs the State of Maharashtra