The State of Maharashtra sought leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of Parubhai Dattatraya Shinde for murder. The High Court found no perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning and dismissed the application.
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed.
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.
(22)APPLN-42-13
Tilak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.42 of 2013
| The State of Maharashtra | ... | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| versus | ||
| Parubhai Dattatraya Shinde | ... | Respondent |
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the applicant State.
CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 07, 2013
P.C.
1 By this application, the applicant State seeks leave to file an appeal challenging part of the judgment of the First Adhoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Solapur dated 30 October 2012 acquitting the respondent/original Accused no.2, for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 The learned APP has very fairly pointed out to us that the only evidence against the present respondent is the evidence of complainant - PW no.4 and PW no.3 who had stated that Accused no.2 and Muktabai was instigating by gestures to the original Accused no.1 for assaulting the deceased. The Trial Court at
2/2 (22)APPLN-42-13
paragraph no.46 of the judgment has recorded a finding that the aforesaid evidence was elicited as omission, and therefore, could not be relied upon
3 Similarly, an omission was also elicited in vis-a-vis the previous statement of PW no.3. Thus, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever to come to a conclusion that the present respondent had shared the intention of original Accused no.1. The Trial Court had accordingly acquitted the respondent.
4 With the assistance of the learned APP, we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court, and upon such perusal, we did not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in the appeal against acquittal.
( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J ) (P.V.HARDAS,J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether perverse reasoning by the Trial Court in acquitting the respondent warrants interference with the acquittal on criminal appeal.
Whether the exclusion of gestural evidence by the Trial Court was a ground to set aside the acquittal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Parubhai Dattatraya Shinde
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
P.V. Hardas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
