Allowed

Sadikali S/O Asadali (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Hiwarkhed, Akola

Bombay HC7 Oct 2015APPA/641/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to a 70-year-old applicant charged with dowry-related cruelty and burning the deceased. The decision relied on the applicant's advanced age and conflicting dying declarations regarding his role in the crime.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and grant of bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties.

Sadikali S/O Asadali (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 appa641.15.odt

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application (APPA) No. 641 of 2015

¶4

(Sadikali S/o Asadali Vs. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Hiwarkhed, Dist. Akola)

¶5

¶6

Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2015

¶7

(Masoodali Sadikali and anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Hiwarkhed, Dist. Akola)

¶8

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

¶9

Shri R. M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant Shri T. A. Mirza, APP for the State/non-applicant

¶10

CORAM : B. R. Gavai and P. B. Varale, JJ . DATE : 7-10-2015.

¶11

This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The applicant is the father in law of deceased. It is prosecution case that the applicant's son i.e. husband of the deceased and the daughters of the applicant were ill-treating the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is the case of prosecution that on the fateful day, the applicant and his son poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire.

¶12

Perusal of the record would reveal that the prosecution initially relied on oral dying declaration given to the mother of the deceased as well as two dying declarations recorded by two Executive Magistrates.

¶13

.....2/-

¶14

2 appa641.15.odt

¶15

We have perused the dying declarations. One is at Exhibit 138 and second is at Exhibit 142. Insofar as dying declaration at Exhibit 142 is concerned, the role of pouring kerosene is attributed to both viz. the applicant and his son. However, insofar as the dying below Exhibit 138 is concerned, the role of pouring kerosene and setting of fire is attributed only to son of the applicant.

¶16

The applicant is aged about 70 years. The applicant has already undergone the sentence of 3½ years. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is aged person and we find further there are conflicting dying declarations, the applicant is entitled to suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

¶17

The judgment and order of conviction is, therefore, suspended.

¶18

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

wasnik

¶21

...../-

Sadikali S/O Asadali (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Hiwarkhed, Akola

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadikali S/O Asadali (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Hiwarkhed, Akola

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

Govinda S/O Narayan Shende Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Tumsar, Bhandara and Others

Prabhakar Jaswant Mandlekar (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Inspector General, Eastern Region, Nagpur and Another

Nitin S/O Dewaji Lanjewar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Sakkardara, Nagpur and Another

Shri. Ravindrasing @ Muliasing S/O Sarwansing Gour Vs the Commissioner of Police Nagpur City and Others

Manohar S/O Vithal Divte and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Paraseoni, Nagpur

Sunil S/O Gayaprasad Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and 2 Others