Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Bharat S/O Uttam Chigure and Another

Bombay HC8 Jan 2015APPLN/4391/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to file an appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the second accused for lack of evidence. Conversely, it allowed the criminal application filed by the first applicant, ordering action under Section 390 Cr.P.C., and admitted the appeal of the State.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal refused against Respondent No.2; Application allowed against Respondent No.1 with direction for action under Section 390 Cr.P.C.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bharat S/O Uttam… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

4391.14crapln

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

¶6

______________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4391 OF 2014

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

BHARAT S/O UTTAM CHIGURE AN

¶10

APP for Applicant/State : Mrs.P.J. Bharad. Advocate for Respondents :Mr.Chatterji Joydeep.

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ. Dated: JANUARY 08, 2015

¶12

Heard learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for respondents. Perused the record, notes of evidence and also the findings recorded by the trial Court. It appears that the presence of original accused No.2 Phulabai w/o Uttam Chigure itself was not convincingly established by the prosecution and secondly, even if the allegations of ill-treatment are taken in its entirety, it appears that there are no specific allegations against the accused No.2.

¶13

2 In that view of the matter, the view taken by

¶14

4391.14crapln

¶15

¶16

the trial Court as against respondent No.2 appears to be plausible. Therefore, so far as respondent / accused No.2 Phulabai Uttam Chigure is concerned, leave to file appeal is refused. Application stands rejected to the extent of respondent No.2.

¶17

3 So far as applicant No.1 Bharat s/o Uttam Chigure is concerned, upon perusal of the evidence and in particular, evidence of P.W.1, it shows that there are specific allegations about ill-treatment and also the medical evidence needs consideration.

¶18

4 In that view of the matter, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B), (C), and (F) so far as respondent No.1 is concerned. Application stands disposed of.

¶19

5 Appeal admitted .

¶20

On admission, learned Counsel for respondents waives service.

¶21

6 Action under Section 390 Cr.P.C. to follow before the Sessions Court, Jalna.

¶22

kadam/

The State of Maharashtra v. Bharat S/O Uttam Chigure and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Bharat S/O Uttam Chigure and Another

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

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

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Santosh @ Bandu Baburao Borhade and Another

Vidya Damodhar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bandu @ Hiranath Jaggannath Kanhere and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ravindra Motiram Hire and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others