Allowed

Tanaji S/O Venkat Chendke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Oct 2016APPLN/217/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Industrial Court on a Criminal Application under Section 484 CrPC allowed the application of an applicant convicted of murder and causing injury to body, disbarring due to lack of definite chain of circumstantial evidence and missing key witness, suspending the sentence and granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety; substantive sentence suspended.

Tanaji S/O Venkat Chendke Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

217.16appln

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2016 IN APEAL/10/2016 WITH APEAL/10/2016

¶7

TANAJI S/O VENKAT CHENDKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

Advocate for the applicant : Mr. S.S. Panale
APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.W. Mundhe

¶9

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: October 01, 2016

¶10

By this Criminal Application, the
applicant-accused seeking suspension of
sentence of imprisonment passed by the
Sessions Judge, Latur vide judgment and
order dated 22nd December, 2015 passed in
Sessions Case No.55 of 2014. The Sessions
Judge by the impugned judgment and order
dated 22nd December, 2015 convicted the
applicant-accusedfortheoffence
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

¶11

217.16appln

¶12

¶13

default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for six months. So also the applicant-
accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 201 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and pay fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶14

2.The learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that there is no chain
of circumstantial evidence against the
applicant-accused. The learned counsel
submits that the Sessions Judge has
believed PW-1 Police Patil of the village
before whom the applicant-accused has
made extra-judicial confession. The
learned counsel further submits that the
extra-judicial confession before the
Police Officer is not admissible in
evidence. The learned counsel further
submits that even the dead body alleged
to be of deceased Sangita was not in
identifiable condition and merely on the
basis of certain averments in the
panchanama, it is stated that dead body
foundwasofdeceasedSangita.
Furthermore, there is only excavation
panchanama Exh-52 which was drawn during
the course of investigation and the same

¶15

217.16appln

¶16

¶17

is proved by the prosecution before the
Court below. However, the said dead body
was not recovered at the instance of the
applicant-accused by drawing panchanama
as per the provisions of Section 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act. The learned
counsel further submits that the
important witness Indrajit Jadhav, who is
on the point of `last seen together' was
not examined by the prosecution before
the Court below. Even the CCTV footage
alleged to have installed in Bhairavnath
Temple is also not duly proved by the
prosecution.

¶18

3.The learned A.P.P. submits that
there is chain of circumstantial evidence
against the applicant-accused and the
applicant-accused is not entitled to be
released on bail.

¶19

4.On careful perusal of the
impugnedjudgmentandorderof
conviction,itappearsthatthe
circumstances brought before the Court
below are not having definite tendency to
point out unerringly guilt of the
accused. Furthermore, the dead body
alleged to be of deceased Sangita was not
recovered at the instance of the

¶20

217.16appln

¶21

¶22

applicant-accused. Furthermore, the said
dead body was not in identifiable
condition. There is missing link in
circumstantialevidence,asthe

¶23

prosecution has not examined the said
Indrajit Jadhav, who is on the point of
`last seen together'.

¶24

5.In that view of the matter, we are
inclined to release the applicant-accused
on bail. Hence the following order:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i)The application is hereby allowed.

¶27

(ii)Applicant Tanaji Venkat Chendke be
released on bail on his furnishing P.R.
bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand
Only) with one surety of the like amount,
before trial Court. The substantive
sentence is suspended.

¶28

(iii)The learned counsel appearing
for the applicant-accused assures this
Court that as and when the appeal would
be listed for hearing, the applicant-
accused will remain present on that date
before this Court.

¶29

(iv)The Registry of this Court shall send

¶30

217.16appln

¶31

¶32

original Record and Proceedings to the
Registry of Sessions Judge, Latur. Upon
receiving the original record and
proceedings by the Registry of the
Sessions Judge, Latur, the Registry of
concerned Court shall prepare the paper
book and send it back along with original
record and proceedings, as expeditiously
as possible, and preferably within three
months from receipt of the original
record and proceedings.

¶33

(v)List the Criminal Appeal for further
hearing on 6th February, 2017.

¶34

(V.K. JADHAV,J) (S.S. SHINDE,J)

¶35

sga/

Tanaji S/O Venkat Chendke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji S/O Venkat Chendke v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Ramji S/O Kondji Khandare and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra

Motilal S/O Bhaulal Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Shri Kiran S/O Radhakishan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dipak Dagdu Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nikita W/O Akhilesh Soni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh S/O Narayan Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others