Allowed

Santosh Prabhakar Dhavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jul 2013APPA/659/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 389 CrPC to suspend the appellant's substantive sentence of seven years for culpable homicide and three years for cruelty, enlarging him on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence and enlargement of the applicant on bail by furnishing a Personal Bond of Rs. 15,000 and one or two sureties.

Santosh Prabhakar Dhavan Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Mhi 1

¶2

APPA-659-13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 659 OF 2013 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2013

¶6

Santosh Prabhakar Dhavan

¶7

... Applicant (Orig. accused No.1)

¶8

vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents

¶9

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Sachin Kadam,Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

Ms. M.R.Tidke,APP,for the respondent-State

¶11

CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 16th July, 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard. This is an application under Section 389 of the Code of

¶14

Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking suspension of the substantive sentence. The applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of

¶15

IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 306 and three years for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC in Sessions Case No.33 of 2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Niphad vide judgment

¶16

and order dated 15.3.2013. The applicant is in jail since 10.3.2012. Charge was framed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶17

Mhi 2 APPA-659-13.sxw

¶18

However, he has been acquitted of the said charge.

¶19

It is the case of prosecution that the applicant was married on 28.12.2004. The couple is blessed with two children – a daughter viz. Sujata and son Apurva. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was in the habit of consuming alcohol and had been assaulting his wife under the influence of alcohol.

¶20

Perusal of the substantive evidence of the brother of the deceased, it appears that the deceased had complained to her parents and brother that she was harassed by her husband and other members of the maternal family on account of non-cooking of food properly. It is also alleged that her husband and other members were disappointed with her as she had given birth to a baby girl. It is further alleged that they were demanding money from her parental house for opening up a garment shop. The accused had demanded Rs.50,000/-. PW-1 has also narrated certain incidents from 16.1.2012 to 23.2.2012 wherein she had alleged that her husband was beating her under the influence of alcohol. However, there is no allegation of all that. She was assaulted for not fetching dowry. On 9.3.2012, she consumed a poisonous substance called `Nuvan'. She was rushed to the hospital by her husband and others. However, she succumbed

¶21

Mhi 3 APPA-659-13.sxw

¶22

to the poisonous substance. The brother of the deceased had informed the police machinery that in fact, she has died a homicidal death and had also submitted a list of 41 witnesses to that effect. However, the applicant has been acquitted of the said charge.

¶23

It is clear from the evidence and the sole reason for commission of suicide is that her husband was a alcoholic and used to beat her under the influence of alcohol. There is nothing on record to indicate that the parents or brother had taken her to the matrimonial house to save her from the atrocities of her husband. The sentence is a short-term sentence.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. AIR 2001 SCW 5130 and submits that at present, this Court is hearing jail appeals of the year 2007 and therefore, it may ot be possible to take up the matter for final hearing in the near future.

¶25

Hence, the following order :-

¶26

(i) The application is allowed. The substantive sentence imposed upon

¶27

Mhi 4 APPA-659-13.sxw the applicant is hereby suspended. The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall report to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Niphad, once in six months as may be directed by the Sessions Court.

¶29

(iii) On failure to attend before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Niphad on any two consecutive dates, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.

¶30

Application stands disposed of.

¶31

(SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Santosh Prabhakar Dhavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Prabhakar Dhavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Vaman Khadilkar Vs Vinayak Ramchandra Vaishyampayan and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hemantkumar Gajanan Gharat

Baban Maruti Sonphule Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Anant Ramesh Shinde and Anr.

Vijay Narottam Tamore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahamad Hasan Mahamad Islam Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra