Coram admitted an appeal filed by the State against a judgment in a criminal trial. The bench granted leave to appeal in light of unconsidered eye-witness and medical evidence, recommending action under Section 390 CrPC.
Leave to file appeal granted; action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow before Sessions Court.
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.
925 sr.no..odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1879 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS BABAN PARASRAM CHAVHAN AND OTHERS
APP for Applicant : Mrs. S. D. Chincholkar Advocate for Respondents : Mr. V. B. Jogdand
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2015.
PER COURT:
1] Heard learned APP for the appellant. There are 5 eye witnesses and also, there is corroboration to their version. As such, this is a fit case wherein leave to file appeal deserves to be granted.
2] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the prosecution case suffers from inherent contradictions, omissions and improvements. According to learned counsel for the respondents there are two incidents in one transaction. It is submitted that a possible view has been taken by the trial court. Therefore, leave to file appeal may be refused.
3] Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court, prima facie, it appears that the evidence of the 5 eye witnesses has not been properly considered coupled with medical evidence. Hence, a case is established for allowing the application.
4] Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A)(B)(C) and (F) and the same is disposed of.
925 sr.no..odt
{2}
5] Admit. On admission, Mr. Jogdand, waives notice for respondent. Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow before the Sessions Court, Jalna.
[A.M. BADAR] [S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file an appeal should be granted in the present case.
Whether the prosecution case suffers from inherent contradictions and omissions.
Whether the eye witness evidence has been properly considered by the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
BABAN PARASRAM CHAVHAN
S.S. SHINDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
