Allowed

Smt. Sunanda W/O Madhukar Atram (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Ballarshah

Bombay HC15 Apr 2014APPA/9/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for suspension of the substantive sentence and grant of bail to a 64-year-old female appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC. Based on prima facie findings of no established motive, acquittal of co-accused under Section 302, and medical possibility of accidental smothering due to alcohol consumption, the court released her on existing bail conditions with fresh

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended pending appeal; accused released on bail with fresh bonds.

Smt. Sunanda W/O Madhukar Atram (in Jail) Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

15042014appano.9.2014 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Application (APPA) No. 9 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2014

¶4

Smt. Sunanda w/o Madhukar Atram vs. The State of Maharashtra

¶5

Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶6

Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate with Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant/ appellant. Shri V.A.Thakare, APP for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & C.V.BHADANG,JJ DATE : 15.04.2014

¶8

This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶9

for grant of bail. The appellant is original accused no.1, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Dr. Vijay Wadaskar. The incident has occurred in the night intervening between 28th April, 2006 and 29th April, 2006.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and on the same set of evidence the original accused no.2 has been acquitted although his presence in the house of the appellant has been found

¶11

15042014appano.9.2014 2

¶12

by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive as one of the circumstance in support of its case. It is also submitted that admittedly the death of the deceased has occurred due to smothering and it was found that the deceased had heavily consumed liquor and there was a strong presence of liquor in his blood. It is, therefore, submitted that the possibility of this being a case of accidental smothering, cannot be ruled out.

¶13

On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned APP that the learned Sessions Judge has properly culled out various circumstances which indicate the guilt of the appellant and in that view of the matter no case for bail is made out.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP. Prima facie, at this stage, the learned Sessions Judge has found that no motive is established. The original accused no.2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code although he has been found guilty under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Further prima facie at this stage the Medical Officer has admitted that in case of heavy consumption of alcohol, there is possibility of accidental smothering and bleeding from the nose. Further having regard to the fact that the appellant/applicant is a lady said to be

¶15

15042014appano.9.2014 3

¶16

aged 64 years and was on bail during the trial and in the absence of any allegation that she has misused the liberty, we are inclined to allow the application. Accordingly, the following order is passed.

¶17

Order

¶18

The substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended pending disposal of the appeal. The applicant/appellant is directed to be released on bail on the same conditions on which she was on bail during the trial subject to execution of fresh bail bonds.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

15042014appano.9.2014 4

Smt. Sunanda W/O Madhukar Atram (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Ballarshah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunanda W/O Madhukar Atram (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Ballarshah

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

Tarunkumar S/O Narayan Prasad Kosa Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Nandura, Buldhana

Ankush S/O Laxmanrao Nikhade Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur

Vijay @ Guddu S/O Babarao Mahakalkar and 3 Oths (in Jail) Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Sewagram

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Armori Vs Rakesh Shalik Lonare @ Dinesh Shalikrao Sahare and 3 Others

S. Esrail S. Faiyaz, Convict NO.C-343 Vs the D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R), Nagpur and Another

Shri. Sahebrao S/O Mohan Togre and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the P.S.O. P.S. Virur, Chandrapur