Deepak Shrikrushna Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2013APPLN/5466/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected two criminal applications seeking suspension of conviction for offences under IPC Sections 307, 149, 148, and 506. Despite arguments regarding procedural irregularities in framing charges and lack of opportunity to defend, relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that suspension is not permissible unless exceptional circumstances exist.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal applications were rejected; the conviction remains suspended as per order. The court emphasized that appeals are yet to be disposed of expeditiously.

Deepak Shrikrushna Solanke Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

2 appln.5466.13 n 2589.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5466 OF 2013

¶5

IN APEAL/115/2013

¶6

DEEPAK SHRIKRUSHNA SOLANKE

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.B.Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr.

¶10

V.D.Salunke.

¶11

APP for Respondent No.1 / State : Mrs.V.A.Shinde.

¶12

WITH

¶13

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2589 OF 2013

¶14

IN APEAL/103/2013

¶15

ASHOK S/O. SUDAM SOLANKE VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶17

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. K.J.Suryawanshi. APP for Respondent / State : Mrs.V.A.Shinde.

¶18

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 16th December, 2013.

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

1 Both the applications are filed for suspension of conviction

¶21

2 2 appln.5466.13 n 2589.13

¶22

given for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149

¶23

of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicants are sentenced to suffer R.I. for

¶24

seven years and also to pay a fine. They are also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian

¶25

Penal Code and Section 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. This Court

¶26

has already suspended substantive sentence given to the Applicants and

¶27

they are released on bail. However, they want suspension of conviction

¶28

itself. This Court expressed that appeals can be expedited, but the learned counsel for the Applicant from first proceeding insisted that

¶29

conviction should be suspended and so, hearing was given.

¶30

2 The application is made mainly on the ground that the name

¶31

of the Applicant from proceeding No.5466 of 2013 was not mentioned in

¶32

the charge-sheet, but he was implicated by the Court by using Section

¶33

319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the trial. The charge was

¶34

not framed against him when he was made accused in the case. It came

¶35

to be framed at later stage, but before delivering the judgment. However,

¶36

when the charge was framed, the Court gave opportunity to both the

¶37

sides to lead evidence and then purshis came to be filed by the

¶38

¶39

2 appln.5466.13 n 2589.13

¶40

prosecutor to the effect that the State has no intention to examine more

¶41

witnesses or examine any witness. The defence counsel has made

¶42

similar submissions though it is not specifically mentioned, the number of

¶43

the Applicants from proceeding No.5466 of 2013. The same defence counsel was representing all the accused and so, it cannot be believed

¶44

that the defence counsel was making submissions only for other accused.

¶45

Thus, as per the record, the defence counsel has not expressed desire to

¶46

recall the witnesses for cross-examination or to examine more witnesses

¶47

in defence.

¶48

3 It is the case of the Applicant from first proceeding that no

¶49

opportunity was given to him to defend the matter and the evidence was recorded in his absence and so, conviction needs to be suspended. The

¶50

Applicant from first proceeding was in service and he can be reinstated if

¶51

the conviction is suspended. On the other hand, the Applicant from

¶52

second proceeding apprehends termination of service due to decision of conviction and so, he wants suspension of the conviction.

¶53

4 The learned counsel for the Applicant from fist proceeding

¶54

placed reliance on some reported cases like:

¶55

¶56

2 appln.5466.13 n 2589.13

¶57

i. [ 2011 Cri.L.J. 2360 ];

¶58

Harihar Mishra Vs. Republic of India. ii. [ 2006 (1) Cr.R. 757 ];

¶59

Tarsem Singh & ors. Vs. State (Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh.

¶60

iii. [ 2010 Cri.L.J. 477 ]; Pravinkumar Paraskumar Gokhroo Vs. State of Gujarat & anr. iv. [ 2001(1) CPMH 55 ];

¶61

Pralhad Sitaram Yeole Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶62

In all these cases, the High Court had suspended the conviction in

¶63

view of the peculiar circumstances and so, the learned counsel placed reliance on the reported cases.

¶64

5 The learned counsel for the Applicant place reliance on the

¶65

case reported as [1975 CRI. L. J. 1402(1)] , Patna High Court, Ram

¶66

Shankar Raj Vs. The State of Bihar . In that case, the evidence was not

¶67

recorded in presence of the accused. The High Court held that in view of

¶68

the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, trial was vitiated.

¶69

¶70

2 appln.5466.13 n 2589.13

¶71

6 The learned APP placed reliance on the case reported as :

¶72

i. [AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3320] ;

¶73

K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh.

¶74

ii. [AIR 2004 SC 1188] ; State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A Jaganathan.

¶75

iii. [(2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 364] ; Vijay Kumar Vs. Narendra and others.

¶76

In these cases, the provision of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal

¶77

Procedure discussed. The Apex Court refused to suspend the sentence

¶78

when it was filed under the Act. In the first case and in the second case,

¶79

the Apex Court has laid down that ordinarily the conviction is not to be suspended. In the third case, the Apex Court has observed that even the

¶80

bail can be granted in that appeal only after considering the material and

¶81

the Court granting bail in appeal must give reasons.

¶82

7 The Bench of five Honourable Judges of the Apex Court in

¶83

the case reported as [ (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 231 ] ;

¶84

(B.R.Kapur Vs. State of T.N. And another) , has laid down that only in

¶85

exceptional circumstances, the conviction can be suspended. For that,

¶86

power given under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be

¶87

¶88

2 appln.5466.13 n 2589.13

¶89

used. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that no such exceptional case is made out. Only due to probability that the

¶90

Appellant may get acquittal in appeal, it cannot be said that the

¶91

exceptional case is made out. This Court has already observed that the Court is ready for expeditious disposal of both the appeals. This Court

¶92

holds that it is not a fit case where conviction can be suspended.

¶93

Whether prejudice is caused or not, can be considered only on merits.

¶94

8 In the result, both the applications stand rejected.

¶95

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶96

ndm

Deepak Shrikrushna Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Shrikrushna Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

The State of Mah Vs Sandip Bhimrao Narwade and Ors.

Hifjur Abdul Rehman Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Raosaheb Bhausaheb Bhogade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Namdeo Balaji Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Apparao Yeshwant Bandichawadi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sominath Bhimrao Waghule Vs the State of Maharashtra