Single judge application for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal in a murder case was dismissed as it involved reappreciation of evidence which could not be done at that stage.
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
cri-appa-2-13
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2013
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1416 OF 2011
Pintya @ Bhimrao Vasant Salve .. Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Ms. S. D. Khot a/w Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for applicant. Smt. V. R. Bhonsale, APP for State.
CORAM: P. V. HARDAS &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
APRIL 16, 2013.
P.C.
1. By this application, the applicant / original accused no.2 seeks
suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal.
committed murder of deceased Banti on 6/4/2008 at 11 p.m. The prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of PW 1 - Pavan, PW 2 - Sandip and PW 3 - Ashok as eye witnesses to the incident. The applicant is
2
cri-appa-2-13
alleged to have wielded baseball bat in order to inflict the injuries to deceased Banti. The juvenile accused is alleged to have stabbed deceased Banti on his chest.
of PW 1 - Pavan and PW 3 - Ashok in order to point out to us an inter se variance in the evidence of these two witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, in the light of the inter se variance in the evidence of these two witnesses, an inference ought to have been drawn by the trial court that PW 1 could not have been witnessed the incident on account of darkness and it was extremely doubtful if PW 1 - Pavan was present at the scene of the incident. In respect of evidence of PW 2 - Sandip also it is urged before us that there is variance in the testimony of PW 2 - Sandip and the other eye witnesses. The learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of the Medical Officer to urge before us that the injury alleged to have been inflicted by the applicant was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned APP has opposed the application and has urged for dismissal of this application.
3
cri-appa-2-13
pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that there is strong prima facie material against the applicant which spells out his involvement in the commission of the offence. Since the applicant is convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC, according to us it is immaterail as to whether the injury caused by the applicant was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)
Pintya @ Bhimrao Vasant Salve
The State of Maharashtra
P. V. Hardas
Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
