Disposed
The State of Mah v. Haribhau Narayan Pawade and Ors.
Bombay HCAPPLN/284/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No.546/2012 & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.Appeal No.546/2012 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.546/2012
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.237/2013; 448/2012; 487/2012;
182/2013; 238/2013; 284/2013 & 201/2013.
Dadarao Raosaheb Pawade
- APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.Anil M.Gaikwad; Mr.VS Kadam, Adv. h/for Mr. VR
Dhorde,Advocates for respective Appellants;
Mr.SG Nandedkar, APP for State in respective appeals.
*****
CORAM:K.U.CHANDIWAL &
A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER,2013.
PER COURT :
1)Heard the learned Counsel for respective
appellants and learned APP for State in respective
appeals.
2)Criminal Appeal Nos.487/2012 and 448/2012,
are already admitted on 25th July, 2012 and 9th July,
2012 respectively.
3)Criminal Appeal No.546/2012 filed by
appellant – Dadarao Raosaheb Pawade, wherein the
acquittal recorded in Sessions Case No.66/2006
against the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 (original accused)
is questioned.
2 Cri.Appeal No.546/2012 & Ors.
4)Criminal Appeal No.237/2013 and Criminal
Appeal No. 238/2013 are filed by the State feeling
aggrieved by the same judgment in Sessions Case No.
70/2007 and 66/2006 respectively, seeking enhancement
of sentence passed against the accused/respondents
therein, where the Additional Sessions Judge-2,
Nanded on 30th June, 2012, acquitted the accused
therein, for offence under Section 307 of IPC,
however, convicted the accused for offence under
Section 326, 323, r/w 149 of IPC and other
provisions.
5)Considering the rival group to be before
this Court, on same finding in different appeals,
leave to appeal is granted. Admit the Criminal Appeal
No.546/2012; Criminal Appeal No.237/2013 and Criminal
Appeal No.238/2013. Learned Counsel for the
respective respondents waive service.
6)In Criminal Appeal No.182/2013, arising out
of Sessions Case No.70/2007, the original complainant
hasquestionedinadequatesentence,
converting/modifying the provisions of Section 307 of
IPC to one under Section 326 r/w 149 of IPC and
acquittal of accused No. 6 - Balasaheb.
7)The original accused, as stated earlier, has
3 Cri.Appeal No.546/2012 & Ors.
already preferred the criminal appeal, challenging
the conviction. Consequently, leave to file appeal
is granted. Admit the Criminal Appeal No.182/2013.
Mr.Gaikwad waives service for Respondent Nos.2 to 10.
8)The State by Criminal Appeal Nos.238/2013
and 201/2013 has questioned the acquittal of
respondents therein arising out of Sessions Case No.
66/2006 and 70/2006 respectively. As the original
accused have also questioned the conviction recorded,
including the original complainant, on the point of
inadequate sentence, by above referred appeal, leave
to file appeal is granted. Admit the State appeal
Nos.284/2013 and 201/2013. Mr.Kadam waives service
for respective respondents in State Appeal.
9)Call R and P. Private paper book is
permitted.
(A.I.S.CHEEMA) (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
Dadarao Raosaheb Pawade
The State of Maharashtra
K.U.CHANDIWAL
A.I.S.CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court