State sought leave to appeal acquittal of three accusedin murder trial. Court examined prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. Found weighty lacunas including possibility of accident/suicide and impl witness conduct. Refused leave to appeal.
Leave to file appeal stands refused. Criminal Application stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
cra5755.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5755 OF 2011
The State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO Taluka Police Station,
Bhusawal.
...APPLICANT.
VERSUS
1) Pramod Bajirao Koli,
Age-30 years, Occu:Labourer,
R/o-Belvai, Tq-Bhusawal,
Dist-Jalgaon,
2) Shantaram Kadu Koli,
Age-27 years, Occu: Labourer,
R/o-Tandalwadi, Tq-Raver,
Dist-Jalgaon,
3) Namdeo Kadu Koli, Age-26 years, Occu:Labourer, R/o-Padalsa, Tq-Yawal, Dist-Jalgaon....RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for the
Applicant - State.
...
2
cra5755.11
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2012.
ORAL ORDER [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.] :
1.This Application is filed by the State
seeking leave to file Appeal against the Judgment
and order dated 26th August 2011, in Sessions Case
No.63 of 2007, delivered by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The Session Court has
acquitted the Respondents of the offences
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2.The learned A.P.P. is heard. This Court
has perused the original Record and Proceedings.
3.The case of prosecution is entirely based
on circumstantial evidence. The report was given
by brother of deceased that he had left the
deceased Sunil in the company of accused, as
cra5755.11
3
accused had called him in their field on 14th
December, 2006, at about 10 a.m. After that the
complainant had not seen the deceased alive. When
the deceased did not return to home, the
complainant made enquiry with the accused and
according to the complainant, they informed that
the deceased had returned from their field within
10 to 15 minutes. The complainant did not give any
report till 18th December, 2006. On 18th December,
2006, when the complainant was about to give
missing report, the dead body of his brother Sunil
was found in the well situated in the field of one
Rajaram Attarde. Rajaram gave report and on the
basis of report of Rajaram, A.D. came to be
registered.
4.Dead body of Sunil was referred for post
mortem examination. Doctor is examined in the
trial Court and the evidence of the Doctor shows
the cause of death as "asphyxia due to drowning".
The complainant gave report against the accused on
cra5755.11
4
21st December, 2006 and he expressed suspicion
against them by informing that deceased had
illicit relations with the wife of accused No.1.
Crime came to be registered on the basis of
report. On the same day, one Raju Nehete (PW-3)
came forward to say that he had also seen the
deceased in the company of accused persons on 14th
December, 2006. Raju is also examined in the trial
Court.
5.The evidence given before the trial Court
shows that nothing is brought on record to show
the exact distance between the field of accused
and the field of Rajaram. No explanation is given
by the complainant as to why he did not give
report against the accused, at least on 18th
December 2006, when dead body of his brother was
found in the well. The medical evidence shows that
there is possibility of suicide or accidental
death also. Though the trial Court has given some
reasoning, which is hypothetical, to observe that
cra5755.11
5
there is possibility of homicide, the possibility
of accidental or suicidal death cannot be ruled
out. No injury was found on the dead body. No
evidence is given by the complainant that deceased
knew swimming. There are many lacunas in the
evidence of prosecution. When the case is based on
circumstantial evidence, each circumstance is
required to be established fully and all the
circumstances together need to point finger to
the accused. It was necessary for the prosecution
to bring on record the exact distance between the
field of the accused and the well, where the dead
body of Sunil was found. Though there is evidence
of PW-3 Raju, his conduct does not appear to be
natural. He did not intervene in the incident on
14th December, 2006. He did not approach the
complainant when, according to him, the accused
were giving beating to the deceased. No injury was
found on the dead body of Sunil. Thus, it is not
possible for the prosecution to prove basic
requirement, homicidal death.
cra5755.11
6
6. Nothing can be achieved by granting leave
to the State to file Appeal. So, leave to file
Appeal stands refused. The Criminal Application
stands rejected.
[T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/MAR12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file appeal for conviction under Section 302 IPC should be allowed when prosecution evidence reveals serious lacunas regarding homicide intent.
Whether circumstantial evidence fails to rule out suicide or accidental death given lack of injury and unexplained delays in reporting.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Pramod Bajirao Koli
Shantaram Kadu Koli
Namdeo Kadu Koli
NARESH H. PATIL
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court