Allowed

Dhanraj B. Kataria (Intervener) and the Applicants v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Mar 2013APPR/29/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a civil application filed by the father of a deceased victim to be heard in an old criminal revision application. The court rejected the argument that this would protract proceedings, noting the trial involved serious charges including rape and death by burns, and the State had not appealed to enhance the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the civil application to hear the victim's father in the revision application and adjourned the revision hearing.

Dhanraj B. Kataria (Intervener) and the Applicants… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

APPR No.29_2013

jsn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2013

¶7

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2001 – Dhanraj B. Kataria Applicant

¶9

Applicant

¶10

– Subhash D. Bhalgat & Ors. Applicants in the CRA (Original Accused)

V/s.

State of Maharashtra

– Respondent

Shri Shyamrishi Pathak, Adv. & C.M. Kothari for the Applicants. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶15

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 8th March, 2013.

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

The applicant is the father of the deceased lady who is the victim and who has expired. The criminal prosecution was filed U/s.498A, 306 r/w.34 of the IPC against the original accused Nos.1 and 3 and under Section 376 of the IPC also against the original accused No.2 who was the victim's brother-in-law All the three accused came to be convicted. They have filed the revision application. The father of the victim woman desires to be heard in the revision application.

¶18

The accused has served half the sentence and has thereafter has been released on bail. The revision application has been filed since 2001 and has been pending.

APPR No.29_2013

jsn

Counsel on behalf of the applicants in revision application opposes this application on the ground that their joinder would protract the revision application and that the victim or the father of the victim has no right to be heard in the revision application.

¶23

The Court showed its willingness to hear the revision application immediately. Counsel on behalf of the applicants in the revision application states that since only criminal application No.29 of 2013 is on board he cannot be heard. The Court asked counsel on behalf of the applicants in the revision application whether the revision application can be heard in the next week. Counsel states that it may be adjourned for three weeks.

¶24

The revision application is on board since 2001. It has not been heard though twelve years have elapsed. The applicant in the Misc. Application 29 of 2013 who is the father of the deceased victim has not protracted it. Yet counsel on behalf of the applicants in the revision application himself does not desire it to be heard even in the next week. Hence the defence of protracting the hearing is wholly unjustified.

¶25

The criminal prosecution is on very serious charge. A married woman who alleged cruelty has died due to burns. The dying declaration has not been recorded. The cause of death would be material to be seen. Whether the death was suicidal or not would have to be considered. The charge against accused No.2 is also of the offence of rape of his sister-in-law. The applicant who is father of the victim woman would be not only be a proper person to assist court, but would have to be heard as a victim when the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court is considered in revision as per the principles of victiomology enshrined in the CrPC pursuant to the amendment of Section 372 of the code by the addition of the proviso

APPR No.29_2013

jsn

thereto relating to appeals which in substance would be analogous to a revision petition filed by the accused challenging the sentence. 7. Further it is seen that though the impugned judgment has been passed since 31^st December, 1994, 18 years ago and the above Criminal Revision Application has been filed 12 years ago, the State has not thought it fit to file any appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 306 of the IPC. The victim woman's father is, therefore, the only person wanting justice.

¶30

The Civil Application No.29 of 2013 is, therefore, allowed, in terms of prayers (a) and (b). 9. The revision application is adjourned and kept first on board for hearing on 4^th April, 2013.

¶31

( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Dhanraj B. Kataria (Intervener) and the Applicants v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj B. Kataria (Intervener) and the Applicants 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sejal Dharmesh Ved Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vrunda Namdev Dare Vs Namdev Savalaram Dare and Anr.

Ganesh Madhukar Mestry Vs Surekha Ganesh Mestry and Ors.

Aparna Santosh Patil Vs Santosh Dattatray Patil

Dr. Kaikhushroo P. Nicholsan and Ors. Vs Amy N. Irani and Anr.

Paresh Shah Vs Preeti Shah