Allowed

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabahn Sabhadinde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Risod Police Station

Bombay HC6 Mar 2014APPA/628/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal involving life imprisonment for murder, the Court scrutinized the sole proprietary witness's delayed and unnatural conduct. Finding the initial statement did not implicate the applicants and observing they were on bail, the Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence allowed. Applicants directed to be released on bail.

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabahn Sabhadinde and Another Vs… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

6.3APPA.628.13

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 628 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 445 OF 2013.

¶5

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabhan Sabhadinde & Mukinda Ramchandra @ Chandrabhan Sabhadinde .vs. The State of Maharashtra

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr. M.K. Pathan, A.P.P. for respondent.

¶8

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

¶9

DATED : MARCH 6, 2014.

¶10

This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶11

grant of bail.

¶12

The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life.

¶13

The perusal of the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that the conviction is recorded basically on the evidence of PW.1 Gajanan Kisan Bijore. The learned Judge has also relied on the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to rest the conviction.

¶14

6.3APPA.628.13

¶15

¶16

We have scrutinized the evidence of PW.1 Gajanan, so also the other evidence. The perusal of his evidence would reveal that the incident had occurred on 7.1.2012. A statement of this witness has also been recorded immediately on the next day wherein it does not implicate the present applicant. The second statement is recorded on 25.1.2012 and for the first time after a gap of more than 18 days he implicates the present applicants. Not only that, but he has admitted in his evidence that till recording of his subsequent statement he has not narrated the incident regarding assault by the accused on his uncle Laxman to anyone in the village.

¶17

The conduct of the witness appears to be unnatural. If uncle of this witness was assaulted, he would have immediately informed the police on the first opportunity. As to why he has remained silent for 18 days has not been explained by him.

¶18

In so far as presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, only after the prosecution proves its case, the burden would shift upon the accused.

¶19

In that view of the matter, at least prima facie we find that the applicants/appellants have good case on merits. Apart from that, the applicants were on bail during trial and it is not the case of the prosecution that they have misused their liberty.

¶20

`In that view of the matter, the application is allowed.

¶21

6.3APPA.628.13

¶22

¶23

The order of conviction and sentence is suspended. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as were applicable during trial.

¶24

Judge Judge J.

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabahn Sabhadinde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Risod Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabahn Sabhadinde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Risod Police Station

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

Smt. Sumitrabai Wd/O Diliprao Domde and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and 4 Others

Shri Pawan Prabhakar Harde and 3 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Urban Development Ministry, Mumbai and 12 Others

Dr. Pritam Gidumal Rachwani Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer and Anr.

Rameshsing S/O Durgasing Suryawanshi and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Girad and Another

Lobha S/O Chandu Chavhan and 5 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Pusad, Yavatmal and Another

Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Dept. Mumbai and Another