Partly allowed

Sanjay Narayan Choudante and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012APPLN/629/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard a criminal application for bail. The applicants were convicted of murder and cruelty. The court granted bail to two applicants but rejected it for one who failed to provide an explanation for the deceased's death.

What did the court decide?

Application of applicants No. 2 and No. 3 allowed; sentences suspended and release granted on P.R. and S.B. of Rs. 15,000/- each; Application of applicant No. 1 rejected.

Sanjay Narayan Choudante and Ors. Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

criapln629-12.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.629/2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59/2012

¶5

1] Sanjay s/o Narayan Choudante Age 41 years, Occ-Legal Practitioner.

¶6

2] Sonabai Narayan Choudante Age 70 years, Occ-Household

¶7

3] Vimalbai W/o Santosh Choudante Age 42 years, Occ-Household. All R/o Bhim Nagar, Mudkhed Tal. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. ..APPLICANTS [Orig.Accused Nos.1,4 & 5]

¶8

Versus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Mudkhed, Tal. Mudkhed District Nanded.

¶10

[Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad]

¶11

.. RESPONDENT

¶12

2 criapln629-12.odt

¶13

Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar,Adv.for applicants. Mr.V.D.Rakh,A.P.P. for State.

¶14

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

¶15

DATE : 5TH MARCH 2012.

¶16

ORAL ORDER : [PER NALAWADE,J.]

¶17

1] The application is filed for bail. The applicants are convicted

¶18

and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life in

¶19

Sessions Case No.9/2007 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. Appellant no.1 is also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C. Both sides are heard. Papers of the trial Court were called in this Court and we have perused the same.

¶20

2] The incident took place within 35 days of the marriage of the

¶21

3 criapln629-12.odt

¶22

appellant no.1 with deceased Sunita. Evidence is given that appellant no.1 was harassing the deceased as he wanted that the deceased should bring Rs.1 lakh from her parents. On the date of the incident i.e. on 22/5/2005, the appellant no.1 and his wife were to visit the house of the parents of the deceased and so the father of the deceased, the complainant was waiting for them. At about 4 p.m. somebody informed to the complainant that Sunita was dead and her dead body was lying in the house of appellant. The complainant went to the spot and noticed that there was ligature mark around the neck of Sunita. He then gave report and initially crime for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. came to be registered. During investigation, it transpired that the death took place due to strangulation. At the instance of accused no.1 ligature material - rope was recovered by police. Evidence of complainant and other relatives of the deceased is given by prosecution in the trial Court. The medical officer who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sunita is also examined.

¶23

¶24

criapln629-12.odt

¶25

3] The evidence shows that on that day, the appellant no.1 and the deceased were to visit the house of the complainant but they did not turn up. The dead body of Sunita was lying in the house of the appellant and there was ligature mark on the neck of Sunita which is described as “Horizontal” in post mortem report. The papers show that the ligature material was not available on the spot and subsequently it was recovered by police at the instance of appellant no.1. C.A. report is at Exh.27. The ligature material was forwarded to C.A. office and the report of C.A. shows that a human tissue was found on the rope. On the basis of this material, appellants are convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offences.

¶26

4] It was submitted for the appellants that in evidence and also

¶27

in post mortem report at one place, the doctor has admitted that the ligature mark was of “Vertical Shape”, though it was shown as Horizontal in the post mortem report and the opinion is specifically given that the death took place due to strangulation. Photographs of the deceased from front and back side are available and they are considered. They show that the ligature mark was complete

¶28

5 criapln629-12.odt

¶29

and it was around the neck. In these circumstances, it was necessary for atleast appellant no.1 Sanjay husband of the deceased to explain the things. It appears that no explanation at all is given by appellant no.1. In view of these circumstances, Sanjay is convicted and sentenced for offence punishable u/s 201 of I.P.C. also.

¶30

5] It was submitted for the appellants that there was no motive for appellant nos.2 and 3 who are mother in law and wife of brother of accused no.1 Sanjay and the circumstantial evidence as against them is not that strong. For the purpose of bail application, this Court holds that benefit of few circumstances which are discussed above can be given at this stage to appellant nos.2 and 3 and they can be granted bail. They were on bail during trial. In view of these circumstances, application of applicant no.1 Sanjay stands rejected.

¶31

6] Application of applicant no.2 Sonabai Narayan Choudante

¶32

and applicant no.3 Vimalbai Santosh Choudante is hereby

¶33

criapln629-12.odt

¶34

¶35

allowed. The judgment and order as against them in respect of sentence is hereby suspended and they are to be released on their

¶36

furnishing P.R. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/- each.

¶37

(T.V.NALAWADE, J.)

¶38

(NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

¶39

umg/criapln629-12

Sanjay Narayan Choudante and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Narayan Choudante 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

Sunil Subhakaran Soni, C.No. 4028 Open Prison Paithan Vs the State of Mah

Suresh Ratan Salvi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raju Bhagwat Suryawanshi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Santosh Kernath Kumbhar Vs the State of Mah

Vijay Gahininath Chavan Vs the State of Mah

Laxman Eknath Mohite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.