Dismissed

Rajaram Shripati Banduke, C.No. 7147 v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013APEAL/411/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad upheld the trial court's decision. The Court found the nine-year-old eyewitness credible and rejected the defence submissions regarding lack of corroboration and the appellant's conduct as innocent. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

Rajaram Shripati Banduke, C.No. 7147 Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cria411.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.411 OF 2011

¶6

Rajaram s/o Shripati Banduke,
Age-56 years, Occu:Convict No.7147,
R/o-Khudaj, Tq-Sengaon,
Dist-Hingoli.

¶7

...APPELLANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Narsi Namdeo, Tq-Sengaon,
Dist-Hingoli.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

 Smt.Bharti Gunjal Advocate appointed for
 Appellant.

¶13

 Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 17TH JULY, 2013

¶17

cria411.11

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :

¶20

1.The Appellant is a life convict. The
Appellant challenges the Judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶21

2.The prosecution case in brief is that the
Appellant Rajaram married Gangubai before thirty
years of the incident in question. They were
having two sons and two daughters out of the said
wed-lock. The couple was residing at Khudaj
Shivhar, in a hut called Akhada situated in their
field. The sons were staying in another field
situated in Khilar Shivhar. One of the grand son,
Dnyaneshwar was staying with Rajaram and deceased
Gangubai. One of the sons of the Appellant was not
surviving at the relevant time. The prosecution
case is that the Appellant was suspecting
character of his wife Gangubai.

¶22

cria411.11

¶23

¶24

3.The incident took place on 18th May,

¶25

2009. On the day of incident Appellant Rajaram returned to Khudaj Shivhar in the early morning. Deceased Gangubai offered him tea. Thereafter Rajaram asked for bread ( Bhakri ). After having bread, Rajaram started abusing his wife. He pelted stone on the head of Gangubai. She fell down in front of the house. Thereafter Rajaram, with the help of axe, assaulted the deceased on her neck and arm, due to which she suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. At the relevant time, father of the Appellant, namely, Shripati was present in the hut. After seeing the incident, he fled away.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Limbaji Raghunath Salgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Raju Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajit Lakhamichand Bothra Vs Mangala Sharad Mutha and Ors.

Baburao Dattoji Kendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinaya Shrikant Bansod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Shivram Karde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others