Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Santosh @ Bandu Baburao Borhade and Another

Bombay HC7 Jan 2015APPLN/2683/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench allowed a Criminal Application (Quashing) against a trial court judgment in a criminal trial, finding the trial court's appreciation of eye witness evidence incorrect and establishing the case based on prima facie evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed and disposed of as prayed in prayer clauses (A)(B)(C) and (F).

The State of Maharashtra Vs Santosh @ Bandu Baburao Borhade… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

{1}

¶2

930 crapl 2683.14.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2683 OF 2014

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS SANTOSH @ BANDU BABURAO BORHADE AND ANOTHER

¶6

APP for Applicant : Mrs. P. J. Bharad Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. K.N. Shermale Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.D. Kotkar

¶7

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 7TH JANUARY, 2015.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1] Heard learned APP for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. Perused the notes of evidence.

¶10

2] Learned APP invited our attention to the evidence of eye witnesses and also to medical evidence and submits that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the eye witnesses and passed the impugned judgment and order.

¶11

3] On the other hand, learned counsel for the original accused, invited our attention to the fact that the prosecution has not brought on record the place of the incidence and, therefore, the benefit of doubt is rightly given to the accused. There was inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the findings recorded by the trial court to contend that the application may be rejected.

¶12

4] We have heard the learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the findings recorded by the trial court. Prima facie, it appears to us that the findings recorded by the trial court are

¶13

{2} 930 crapl 2683.14.odt

¶14

not in consonance with the evidence of the eye witnesses, taking into consideration the evidence of the eye witnesses that they were about to proceed from village Tarol to Talegaon and on the way, accused No.2 Sopan met the deceased. Therefore, prima facie, it appears to us that the appreciation by the trial court is not correct. In the circumstances, case is established to allow the application. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A)(B)(C) and (F). The application is disposed of.

¶15

5] Admit Appeal.

¶16

6] Learned counsel waive notice for respondents.

¶17

7] Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow before the Sessions

¶18

Court at Sangamner.

¶19

[A.M. BADAR] [S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE.

¶20

grt/-

The State of Maharashtra v. Santosh @ Bandu Baburao Borhade and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Santosh @ Bandu Baburao Borhade and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapnil Purushottam Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vashishtha Ambadas Karande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bhanudas Govind Suryawanshi and Others

Ravina W/O Bharat Chavre and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jivan @ Devendra Nathu Chalse (Ikasa) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rekha Dhondiram Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others