High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad application to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal on charge of abetment of suicide. Court refused leave to appeal, finding no infirmity in trial court's reasoning and noting it was a possible view that required no interference.
Leave to file appeal refused; application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
appln 1350.12.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1350 OF 2012
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
MAHARUDRA MALLAPPA KANTHE
Mr. P.P.More APP for applicant
Mr.Pravin Patil h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde advocate For Respondent sole.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: February 12, 2014
ORAL ORDER :-
having committed offences punishable under Sections 306 of the IPC, 323 of the IPC, 504 of the IPC and 506 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, Udgir, after holding a trial, acquitted him. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, has filed the present application seeking leave to file an appeal against the said judgment and order of acquittal.
had abetted the commission of suicide by his own son Rahul. The
other allegations i.e. allegations in respect of offences punishable
2 appln 1350.12.odt
under sections 323 of the IPC, 504 of the IPC and 506 of the IPC were incidental and connected to the main allegation.
3 appln 1350.12.odt
to poisoning on 17.7.2008. On 20.7.2008 the First Information
Report came to lodged.
acts attributed to the respondent did not amount to an offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC. The learned Judge considered the concept of abetment by referring to the provisions
of Section 107 of the IPC and some authoritative pronouncements
of the superior Courts as also that of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 . The legal position as to what constitutes abetment appears to have been properly understood by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who held that the respondent cannot be said to be possessing the requisite
mens rea so as to hold him guilty of having abetted commission of
suicide by his own son.
the learned Additional Sessions Judge on merits of the matter,
who ultimately observed that case against the respondent was not
proved.
4 appln 1350.12.odt
case of the prosecution that, on that day there had been a quarrel between the respondent and the members of his family including Rahul. It was nobody’s case that the respondent had done anything on 16.7.2008 i.e. the day on which Rahul consumed poison. Though, Rahul died on 17.7.2008, the First Information
Report came to be lodged on 20.7.2008.
the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. At any
rate, the view of the Additional Sessions Judge is a possible view.
( ABHAY M. THIPSAY ) JUDGE
aaa/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that the respondent lacked mens rea to be guilty of abetting suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
Whether the omission to make an inquiry on the day of the incident constitutes an infirmity in the trial court's reasoning.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.Referred¶27
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Maharudra Mallappa Kanthe
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
