Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sambhaji S/O Sudhakar Deshmukh and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016APPLN/1930/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal application for leave to appeal under Section 390 CrPC was filed by the State against the trial court's judgment. The High Court, after reviewing prosecution evidence and the trial court's findings, granted leave to appeal and directed the respondents to proceed before the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal allowed; service of notice waived; respondents directed to face action before Sessions Court under Section 390 CrPC.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sambhaji S/O Sudhakar… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1930.2015 Cri.Appln..odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1930 OF 2015

¶5

The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. Sambhaji s/o. Sudhakar Deshmukh, Age 25 years, Occu. Agri.

¶8

2. Sudhakar s/o. Bhagwanrao Deshmukh, Age 55 years, Occu.

¶9

3. Maruti s/o. Sudhakar Deshmukh, Age 20 years, Occu. Agri.

¶10

4. Munnibai @ Panchfula w/o. Vijaykumar Mohite, age 27 years, Occu. Private service,

¶11

All R/o. Babhalgaon, Tq. and
Dist. Latur RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.P.G.Borade, APP for Applicant – State
Mr.A.V.Patil, Advocate for respondents.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶16

 K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

¶17

Date: 22.11.2016

¶18

PER COURT:

¶19

1.Heard the learned APP appearing for
the applicant – State and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent i.e. original
accused.

¶20

1930.2015 Cri.Appln..odt

¶21

¶22

2.The learned APP submits that, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not
been properly appreciated by the trial Court.
It is submitted that, the death of Mahadevi
occurred in the matrimonial home at midnight
on the day of incident within 3 years from
the date of marriage.

¶23

3.On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents invited
our attention to the findings recorded by the
trial Court and submits that, the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses has been properly
appreciated and considered by the trial Court
and the trial Court has reached to the
correct conclusion. The trial Court has taken
a plausible view, and therefore, the
interference in the impugned judgment and
order is not warranted.

¶24

4.We have heard the learned APP
appearing for the Applicant – State and the
learnedcounselappearingforthe

¶25

respondents. Perused the notes of evidence
and in particular evidence of PW-3, PW-6
coupled with the medical evidence and other
evidence, we are of the view that, the
application seeking leave to appeal deserves

¶26

1930.2015 Cri.Appln..odt

¶27

¶28

to be allowed. Hence, the application seeking
leave to appeal is allowed.

¶29

5.Appeal ‘Admit’.

¶30

6.On admission of the Appeal,
Mr.A.V.Patil, learned counsel waives service
of notice for respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶31

7.Action under Section 390 of Criminal
Procedure Code to follow against the
respondents before the Sessions Court, Latur.

¶32

Sd/Sd/- [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

DDC

The State of Maharashtra v. Sambhaji S/O Sudhakar Deshmukh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sambhaji S/O Sudhakar Deshmukh and Ors.

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

Vinod S/O Sanjay Athawale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Ayyub S/O Shaikh Kareem Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nilesh Gulab Mhaske and Ors.

Prabhakar Pandurang Kochure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ruksana W/O Nooruddin Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jai Jawan Agriculture Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.