Dismissed

Gajanan Rajaram Avchar and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC11 Jul 2013APPLN/71/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bhulethane bench of the Bombay High Court rejected a bail application filed by three life convicts during the pendency of their appeal. Relying on consistent dying declarations blaming them for the victim's burning, the court held there was strong evidence against them and remanded the record to the trial court to resolve factual disputes regarding their presence at the scene.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application stands rejected. The Record and Proceedings be sent back.

Gajanan Rajaram Avchar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra71.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2013 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.50 OF 2013

¶7

1) Gajanan s/o Rajaram Avchar, Age-27 years, Occu:Labour,

¶8

2) Santosh s/o Rajaram Avchar, Age-30 years, Occu:Labour,

¶9

3) Jabai @ Jayashri Kalnu Ambhore,

¶10

All R/o-Village Nighoj,
Tq-Parner, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶11

...APPLICANTS

¶12

 VERSUS

¶13

The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Inspector,
Parner, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

...

¶16

 Ms.Preeti R. Wankhede Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶17

...

¶18

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

¶19

 DATE : 11TH JULY, 2013

¶20

cra71.13

¶21

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

1.Heard.

¶24

2.The Applicants, life convicts are praying

¶25

for bail during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶26

3.The prosecution case, in brief, is that

¶27

deceased Pramila was married to Appellant No.1 -
Gajanan. Earlier, since the year 2005, they were
residing at Washim. Thereafter they shifted to
village Nighoj before 1 and 1/2 years of the
incident. Appellant No.2 -Santosh is brother of
Gajanan and Applicant No.3- Jayabai is sister of

¶28

Applicant Nos.1 and 2. Applicant No.3 Jayabai was
married to one Kalnu. The prosecution case further

¶29

suggests that deceased developed illicit relations
with Kalnu and started residing with him. On 29th

¶30

March, 2011, the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had
brought Kalnu and deceased. They produced them
before Nighoj Police at 8.00 p.m. The incident of

¶31

¶32

cra71.13

¶33

burning took place in the mid-night of 29th and
30th March, 2011. The Applicants were staying in
adjacent house and deceased was staying along with
Kalnu and his daughter PW-1 Sapana, in another
house. Applicant No.3 Jayabai was residing
separately in another adjacent house. There are
three dying declarations on record, Exhibits 18,
29 and 36. In all these dying declarations the
deceased has blamed the Applicants for pouring
kerosene on her person and setting her on fire.
The deceased suffered 98% burns and died due to
cardio respiratory arrest due to hypavolemic

¶34

shock due to burns, according to the medical
officer who conducted the post-mortem.

¶35

4.Learned counsel for the Applicants

¶36

submits that the dying declarations are not
truthful and voluntary. The Applicants are
innocent. They have no motive to commit the crime.

¶37

The prosecution has failed to establish as to how

¶38

the Applicants entered the house of Kalnu.

¶39

cra71.13

¶40

¶41

Evidence of PW-1 Sapana, supports the defence
version. The Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had gone to
Shirur, according to the evidence of PW-1.
Applicant Nos.1 and 2 were on bail whereas
Applicant No.3 was not released on bail during the
trial. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for grant
of bail.

¶42

5.The learned A.P.P. has opposed the

¶43

Application on the ground that there are three
consistent dying declarations wherein role of the
Applicants is referred by the deceased. The
Applicants are responsible for causing severe burn
injuries to the deceased.

¶44

6.We have perused the original record, the

¶45

dying declarations, medical evidence. In the dying
declarations the deceased has referred to the role
of the Applicants in pouring kerosene on her

¶46

person and setting her on fire. All the dying
declarations are consistent in respect of the role

¶47

cra71.13

¶48

¶49

attributed to the Applicants. Whether the
Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were at Nighoj or had gone
to Shirur, could be gone into at the time of final
hearing of the Appeal. So also the issue regarding
truthfulness or otherwise of the dying
declarations would also be matter of appreciation
of evidence in detail. The trial Court has held
the Applicants guilty after examining the entire
evidence on record. In the facts and circumstances

¶50

of the case, we are of the view that there is

¶51

strong evidence brought on record by the
prosecution against the Applicants. There is no
merit in the Application. The Criminal Application
stands rejected. The Record and Proceedings be
sent back.

¶52

asb/JUL13

Gajanan Rajaram Avchar and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Rajaram Avchar and Ors. v. the State of Mah

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

Ankush Shrirangrao Gatkal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Narayan Dada Bokhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ujwala Sahebrao Thorat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Pundlik Suvarnakar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramprabhu Gyandeorao Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khirabai Bhoji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra