Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Baburao Shrimant Patil and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2016APPLN/1566/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench considered an application for leave to prefer an appeal under Section 390 Cr.P.C. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to properly appreciate prosecution evidence, specifically the discrepancy between the alleged weapon and injuries. Consequently, it allowed the application and admitted the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking leave to prefer appeal allowed; appeal admitted; proceedings under Section 390 Cr.P.C. to be followed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Baburao Shrimant Patil… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cran1566.15

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1566 OF 2015

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS BABURAO SHRIMANT PATIL AND

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A.M.Phule Advocate for Respondents 1, 3 and 4: Mr. Joydeep Chatterji Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. M.S.Kulkarni

¶7

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶8

DATED: 21^st NOVEMBER, 2016

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant State and the learned counsel for the respective respondents.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. invited our attention to the evidence of P.W.1, who is injured witness and P.W.2, who is wife of P.W.1 and submits that their evidence is not properly appreciated by the trial court in the light of medical evidence and other evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that this application seeking leave to prefer appeal be allowed.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents, relying upon the findings recorded by trial court, submit that the trial court, on appreciation of evidence of eye witnesses found that their evidence is not trustworthy. Even the medical evidence is not useful for the reason

¶13

cran1566.15

¶14

-2-

¶15

that the weapon used by the accused, though stated by the prosecution witness is knife, but there is no corresponding injury caused by the said weapon. He further submits that the trial court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the respondents. Therefore, this court may not entertain this application seeking leave to prefer appeal.

¶16

Upon hearing learned A.P.P. for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusal of evidence of the persecution witnesses and other evidence brought on record by the prosecution and in particular evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, coupled with medical evidence, we are of prima facie opinion that, trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. In that view of matter, case is established for allowing the application seeking leave to prefer appeal. Accordingly application is allowed and the same stands disposed of.

¶17

Appeal is admitted.

¶18

Learned counsel waive notice for respective respondents.

¶19

Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. to be followed before the Sessions Court, Osmanabad.

¶20

rlj/

The State of Maharashtra v. Baburao Shrimant Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Baburao Shrimant Patil and Others

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

Pranali Tukaram Kale. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harshada D/O Bhimrao Badade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay S/O Sukhdev Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Laxman S/O Shamrao Gaikwad

Prakash Ramsing Daude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinkar Daulat Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.