Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vithoba Raoji Chahal and Others

Bombay HC9 Jan 2015APPLN/4969/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench allowed a criminal application admitting appeal after finding prima facie that the trial Court did not properly consider PW6 and medical evidence regarding delay in FIR and cause of death. The matter was remanded for action before the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; appeal admitted; action under Section 390 CrPC to follow before Sessions Court, Ahmednagar.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithoba Raoji Chahal… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Cr.Appln.4969/14

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4969/2014

¶6

The State of Maharashtra.

¶7

...Applicant..

¶8

Versus

¶9

Vithoba Raoji Chahal & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Smt.P.J. Bharad, APP for applicant / appellant.
Shri S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondents.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 09.01.2015

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard learned APP for the applicant and learned
counsel for the respondents – accused.

¶18

2]Learned APP submits that the evidence of PW6 as also

¶19

medical evidence has not been properly considered by the
trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

respondents invited our attention to the evidence of PW6

¶21

and in particular the admission given in the cross-

¶22

Cr.Appln.4969/14

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

examination and also submits that there was delay in
filing the FIR. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, PW6 was not eye-witness to
the incident and secondly delayed FIR after four days of
the incident is sufficient not to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

¶25

3]It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that even the Medical Officer has not given
definite opinion that the death was homicidal and,

¶26

therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is
plausible. Hence, this Court may not interfere.

¶27

4] We have perused the notes of evidence and in particular the evidence of PW6 as also medical evidence. Prima facie it appears to this Court that the evidence of

¶28

PW6 and also medical evidence has not been properly
considered by the trial Court.

¶29

5]In that view of the matter, a case is established by

¶30

the State for admission of the appeal. Accordingly,
application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A),
(B), (C) and (F). Application stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶31

6]Admit the appeal.

¶32

Cr.Appln.4969/14

¶33

7]On admission of the appeal, learned counsel for the
respondents waives service of notice for the respondents.

¶34

8]Action u/s 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
follow before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar.

¶35

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶36

ndk/ cr911421.doc

The State of Maharashtra v. Vithoba Raoji Chahal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vithoba Raoji Chahal and Others

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

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

Sunita W/O Rajendra Takle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Malang Zafar Abdul Raheman and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aasifkhan Rashidkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra