Dismissed

Vinod S/O Vithal Navkhare (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Andhalgaon, Bhandara

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016APPA/696/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, rejected an application for suspension of sentence and bail filed by a convict under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution case was supported by corroborative evidence beyond the minor child witness, specifically the testimony of PW1 and medical records, and found the evidence was not non-existent.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail rejected.

Vinod S/O Vithal Navkhare (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Andhalgaon, Bhandara — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPA] No. 696 of 2015 IN

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2015 [Vinod Vithal Navkhare Vs. State of Mah.]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Mr. S.A. Chaudhary, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for respondent.

¶6

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 20th June, 2016

¶8

The Applicant, who has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

¶9

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the only evidence against the applicant is that of a minor child witness, Kush [PW 5]. It is submitted that the testimony of the said minor child witness is shattered in the cross-examination and as such the conviction would not be sustainable.

¶10

Heard. We have perused the material on record. Perusal of evidence of Subhash Mankar [PW 1] would

¶11

¶12

reveal that immediately after the incident, he had come to his house and after noticing the injuries on the person of his son, Kush, he and others asked him as to how the injuries were caused. His evidence also shows that Kush [PW 5] specifically informed him that the injuries on his person as well as on the person of grand-mother of Kush [PW 5] were caused by the present applicant who was called “Mama” by Kush [PW 5].

¶13

The testimony of Subhash [PW 1] is duly corroborated by Exh.73, the Medical Certificate of Kush [PW 5], it shows that the injuries were sustained by him. As such, the said evidence has also been corroborated in the testimony of PW 1 – Subhash.

¶14

We find that the evidence of Subhash [PW 1] would also reveal that it is the present applicant who was compelling the PW 1 not to lodge an FIR.

¶15

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the present case is a case of no evidence.

¶16

Application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is, therefore, rejected.

¶17

Judge Judge

¶18

|hedau|

Vinod S/O Vithal Navkhare (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Andhalgaon, Bhandara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Vithal Navkhare (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Andhalgaon, Bhandara

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

Subhash Narayan Pise, Secty. Vidarbha Kabadi Association Vs Nanuram Mohanlal Verma and Ors.

Manoj S/O. Shamrao Wadibhasme and Another Vs the State of Maha., through Its Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Anil Shamrao Mulmule Vs State of Maharashtra, Throughits Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and 5

Surendrakumar S/O Ramsevak Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the P.S.O. P.S. Desaiganj, Gadchiroli and Another

Dhanraj Bisanrao Sonule, Thr. His P.O.A. Ku. Vandana Tanbaji Deulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the P.S.O. Wardha City, Wardha and Another

Baburao Mahadeorao Thorat and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra