Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sunita Suresh Choudhari

Bombay HC28 Feb 2012APPLN/5764/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench found the prosecution failed to establish guilt of three accused including the in-laws for the death of the wife caused by throttling. Prima facie a good case was made against the husband. Leave to appeal was granted for the husband but refused for the other accused.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted for accused Sachin Suresh Choudhari to be arrested and released on bail. Leave to appeal refused for other accused.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunita Suresh Choudhari — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Cri. Application 5762 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.5762 of 2011

¶4

The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. Versus Sachin s/o Suresh Choudhari And Others. .. Respondents. --------

¶5

Smt. V.A. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for applicant. --------

¶6

With

¶7

Criminal Application No.5764 of 2011

¶8

The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sunita w/o Suresh Choudhari And Others. .. Respondent.

¶11

Smt. V.A. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for applicant.

¶12

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶13

DATE 28^th FEBRUARY 2012

¶14

2 Cri. Application 5762 of 2011

¶15

ORAL ORDER :-

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

Perused the original record and proceedings. This is an unfortunate incident wherein wife of respondent-accused Sachin Suresh Choudhari died in the house of the accused. The medical officer, after post mortem was conducted, opined as to the cause of death as “asphyxia due to throttling”. PW 8 Dr. Prashant Jogdand was declared hostile. PW 10 is Dr. Sachin Deshmukh, who conducted post mortem along with PW 11 Dr. Santosh Dhoot on 15-8-2010. PW 10 Dr. Sachin Deshmukh noticed following surface wound and injuries on the person of the deceased:

¶18

Abrasion on right side of neck ½ cm x ½ cm

¶19

Imprint abrasion at two places (parallel) on left side of mandible midway between chin and angle of mandible.

¶20

After dissection neck hemorrhage was present in subcutaneous tissue and muscle 2 cm x 3 cm in relation to above external abrasions. Those injuries were ante mortem. Condition of Thyrox and brain was congested.

¶21

3 Cri. Application 5762 of 2011

¶22

The trial Court in para 16 of the judgment observed that the investigating Officer by his charge sheet did not disclose as to whether any one from these accused had throttled the deceased or by all of them together throttled the deceased. Entire investigation is not clear as to who has throttled the deceased.

¶23

From perusal of the record, panchnamas, medical evidence and the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the reasoning adopted by the trial Court we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against accused-respondent – Chandrakant Suresh Choudhari, Suresh Baban Choudhari and Sunita Suresh Choudhari for the offences for which they were charged. The prosecution also failed to establish charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

At the same time, we find prima facie good case against husband of the deceased namely Sachin Suresh Choudhari. We find that the trial Court’s observations and conclusions reached in respect of husband of the deceased

¶25

4 Cri. Application 5762 of 2011

¶26

requires consideration by this Court in the light of the evidence brought on order. Hence, following order.

¶27

Leave to file appeal is granted in respect of respondent–accused Sachin Suresh Choudhari. The appeal is admitted to the extent of accused – Sachin Suresh Choudhari. Action under section 390 of the Cr.P.C. be taken against accused Sachin Choudhari. On his arrest, he be released on bail on furnishing PR of Rs.20,000/(rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court.

¶28

Leave to file appeal in respect of accused – Chandrakant Suresh Choudhari, Suresh Baban Choudhari and Sunita Suresh Choudhari is refused. The criminal applications for seeking leave to appeal in respect these accused are rejected.

¶29

Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶30

rsl

The State of Maharashtra v. Sunita Suresh Choudhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sunita Suresh Choudhari

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

Bhujang Mahdu Panpatte Vs the State of Mah

Gajanan Haribhau Voyvahare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwan Malhari Bangar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, C.No. 4386, Open Prison Paithan Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sachin Suresh Choudhari and Ors.

Rajkumar Khaini Raghuveersingh Khaini @ Swami Raj and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.