Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sarjerao Kailas Kale

Bombay HC2 Mar 2015ALS/18/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in special criminal appeal No.18 of 2015, dismissed the State's application seeking leave to challenge the trial court's acquittal of the respondent under Sections 498A, 302 and 316 of the IPC. The court held that the High Court could not interfere with the acquittal as the trial court had taken a possible view of the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sarjerao Kailas Kale — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

7 ALS 18 OF 2015.doc

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2015

¶5

The State of Maharashtra V/s.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Sarjerao Kalidas Kale …. Respondent

¶8

Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS &

¶10

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

¶11

DATE : 2^ND MARCH, 2015.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

By this application, the applicant State seeks grant of leave to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 29.10.2014 in Session Case No.476 of 2011, acquitting the respondent for

¶14

offence punishable under Section 498A, 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal

¶15

Code.

¶16

The prosecution principally relied upon the circumstances of last seen and motive i.e. the relations between the deceased and the appellant were strained.

¶17

In support of the first circumstance of last seen, the prosecution has examined P.W. 3, 4 and 7 as witnesses, who had seen

¶18

Page No.1 of 3

¶19

7 ALS 18 OF 2015.doc

¶20

the deceased going on the motorcycle of the respondent accused. In respect of P.W.3, the trial Court has observed that admittedly P.W.3 had seen the deceased and the accused from a distance of about half a kilometer. The trial Court has further recorded a finding that it was impossible for this witness to have identified the deceased and the accused. In respect of P.W.4 the trial Court while relying upon the admission of P.W.4 that the main road was not visible from her place, came to the conclusion on the topography of the area, the witness could not have seen the main road. In respect of P.W.7, the trial Court has observed that on account of belated statement of this witness i.e. after a delay of more than 2 months, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of this witness.

¶21

With regard to the charge under Section 498A, the trial Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations were omnibus and vague and therefore no reliance could be placed on the evidence of witnesses examined in support of charge under Section 498A.

¶22

We have heard learned APP with whose assistance we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. Upon such perusal, in our opinion, the view taken by the trial court is possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal

¶23

Page No.2 of 3

¶24

7 ALS 18 OF 2015.doc

¶25

against acquittal. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Leave refused.

¶26

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.]

¶27

Page No.3 of 3

The State of Maharashtra v. Sarjerao Kailas Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sarjerao Kailas Kale

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

Mohd Aadil Mohd Salim Khan @ Rayani Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sambhaji Dhondiram Kharat

Ramu K. Ramsami Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh @ Rashtraya Darekar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashatra

The State O Fmaharashtra Vs Sagar Maruti Bhabad and Ors.

Abhyudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra