Convicted applicant seeking bail for murder conviction. Court rejected application finding defence of accidental fall improbable given witness testimony and injury evidence. Court held not a fit case for bail.
Bail application rejected.
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.
jdk 1 9.cr.appa.1448.15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1448 OF 2015 IN
CRI. APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2016
Sadashiv Gopal Jadhav
.. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 30, 2016
P.C.:
1 Heard both sides. The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of his father Gopal. The applicant is now seeking bail.
2 There is an eye witness i.e. PW 5 Shantabai who is the widow of of the deceased and the mother of the applicant. She has stated that the applicant was angry with his father as the applicant's name was removed from ration card. He has further stated that the applicant in the night between 9 and 10.9.2013 banged the head of his father Gopal against the iron
1 of 2
jdk 2 9.cr.appa.1448.15.doc
cot and thereafter assaulted him with a tile. The assault by the applicant caused eight injuries to Gopal including fracture to the II to VII Ribs of the right side. He also caused fracture to both mandible.
3 The defence of the applicant is that his father was suffering from cataract and hence, he could not see properly due to which, his father fell down and sustained injuries. It is seen that deceased Gopal had sustained eight injuries including fracture to the II to VII ribs and fracture to both mandible. These injuries would not be possible by accidental fall as alleged by the applicant. Thus, we do not find the defence to be probable or acceptable.
4 Looking to the evidence of the eye witness and the other evidence on record, we do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Hence, the application is rejected.
[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of his father.
Whether the defence of accidental fall during a catact-induced blindness is a probable explanation for the sustained injuries.
Sadashiv Gopal Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anju PrabhuDesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
