Partly allowed

Dnyanoba Baburao Pandhare and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013APPLN/2815/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a bail application by life convicts appealing against conviction. Court rejected bail for one applicant but granted it to the female appellant, suspending her substantive sentence.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Applicant No.2 (Lilawatibai) on furnishing Personal and Surety Bond of Rs. 20,000/-; suspension of substantive sentence pending appeal; record sent back.

Dnyanoba Baburao Pandhare and Another Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra2815.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2815 OF 2013 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.228 OF 2013

¶7

1) Dnyanoba s/o Baburao Pandhare,
 Age-39 years, Occu:Agriculture,

¶8

2) Lilawatibai @ Nilawatibai
 w/o Dnyanoba Pandhare,
 Age-34 years, Occ:Agriculture,

¶9

Both are R/o-Babhalgaon,
Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed.

¶10

...APPLICANTS
 VERSUS

¶11

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Officer.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

...

¶14

 Shri.S.J. Salunke Advocate for Applicants.
 Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for Respondents.
 ...

¶15

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

¶16

 DATE : 15TH JULY, 2013

¶17

cra2815.13

¶18

¶19

ORDER :

¶20

1.Heard.

¶21

2.The Applicants, life convicts are praying

¶22

for bail during pendency of the Appeal.

¶23

3.The prosecution case is that there was
some dispute between deceased Tukaram and

¶24

Applicant No.1 Dnyanoba, real brother of deceased
Tukaram, in respect of the partition of the
property. Applicants proceeded to remove some

¶25

bricks lying in the field. That time Applicant
No.1 assaulted the deceased with Barcha (knife),
dangerous weapon on the stomach. The deceased
suffered serious injuries. The Applicant No.2
assaulted daughter of deceased, who tried to
intervene. The deceased was hospitalized. After
two days Tukaram succumbed to the injuries. The

¶26

medical officer who conducted post-mortem, has
opined cause of death as "Abdominal Stab Injury."

¶27

cra2815.13

¶28

¶29

4.Learned counsel for the Applicants

¶30

submits that there was no motive for the

¶31

Applicants to commit crime or to cause such bodily
injuries which would endanger life of Tukaram and
cause harm to daughter of the deceased. The
prosecution evidence is not consistent in respect
of the role attributed to the Applicant Nos. 1
and 2 respectively. Medical evidence indicates
that deceased suffered injuries due to assault by
a bullock.

¶32

5.The learned A.P.P. submits that there is

¶33

strong evidence brought on record by the
prosecution that Applicant No.1 was armed with
dangerous weapon. The Applicants reached the spot
and assaulted the deceased in front of the eye
witnesses. The daughter of the deceased tried to
save her father, but both the Applicants prevented
her.

¶34

cra2815.13

¶35

¶36

6.We have perused the original record. We
find that there is convincing evidence brought on
record by the prosecution that Applicant No.1 was
armed with deadly weapon. He assaulted his real
brother Tukaram on the vital portion of his body,
due to which Tukaram suffered serious injuries and
succumbed to the same. There is no reason to
disbelieve version of daughter of the deceased and
other witnesses in respect of the assault made by
the Applicant No.1.

¶37

7.With regard to role attributed to

¶38

Applicant No.2, we find that she was not armed
with dangerous weapon. She did not assault
daughter of the deceased with dangerous weapon but
Applicant No.2 tried to prevent the daughter of
the deceased by assaulting her with kicks and by
holding her. Considering in its entirety, we find
thatcaseofApplicantNo.2deserves

¶39

consideration. The Applicant No.2 is a woman. She
was on bail during trial.

¶40

cra2815.13

¶41

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(1) The Application is partly

¶44

allowed.

¶45

(2) Application of Applicant No.1 -
Dnyanoba s/o Baburao Pandhare stands
rejected.

¶46

(3) Application of Applicant No.2

¶47

- Lilawatibai @ Nilawatibai w/o

¶48

Dnyanoba Pandhare is allowed.

¶49

(4) Pending hearing and final
disposal of the Appeal, the
substantive sentence imposed on the
Applicant No.2 by the trial Court,
stands suspended.

¶50

(5) Applicant No.2 - Lilawatibai @

¶51

cra2815.13

¶52

¶53

Nilawatibai w/o Dnyanoba Pandhare is
directed to be released on bail on
her furnishing Personal Bond and
Surety Bond in the sum of Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) with one or two sureties in
the like amount.

¶54

(6) The Record and Proceedings be

¶55

sent back.

¶56

[A.I.S. CHEEMA,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]

¶57

asb/JUL13

Dnyanoba Baburao Pandhare and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyanoba Baburao Pandhare and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaykumar Karbhari Golhar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shivkumar Subhashchandra Goyal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sitabai Chandrakant Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Ambar Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govind Ambadas Pakhre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sukhdev Hanumant Pandhare, C.No. 4245, Open District Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Maharashtra