Allowed

The State of Mah Thr. Ahmedpur P.S. v. Gopal Sidram Mekle and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2016APPLN/2541/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application challenging the trial court's findings. It held that since prosecution witness PW4 was not confronted with FIR contents during cross-examination, the trial court's finding of improved evidence was incorrect. Leave to file appeal was granted and the appeal admitted.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application allowed, leave to file appeal granted, appeal admitted, Section 390 CrPC proceedings ordered at Udgir.

The State of Mah Thr. Ahmedpur P.S. Vs Gopal Sidram Mekle and Anr. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2541 OF 2011

¶3

The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station,
Ahmedpur, District Latur

¶4

APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. Gopal s/o Sidram Mekle, Age : 24 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Sora, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur

¶7

2. Maruti s/o Dhondiba Pitle, Age : 30 years, occu. Labour, R/o Walsangi, Tq. Ahmedpur, RESPONDENTS District Latur (Ori. Accused)

¶8

Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for the applicant/State
Mr. Abhay R. Rathod, Advocate for the respondents

¶9

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND

¶10

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 14th September, 2016

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

HeardthelearnedA.P.P.forthe

¶14

applicant/State and the learned counsel for the
respondents/original accused.

¶15

2. The learned A.P.P. invites our attention to the

¶16

criapln2541-2011

¶17

¶18

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submits that

¶19

the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and in
particular, in paragraph No. 12 thereof are contrary to
the evidence of Devidas Dhole (PW4). He submits that in

¶20

the absence of any cross-examination, there was no
occasion for the learned Trial Court to record the
finding that in the FIR, the informant has not stated
that the accused were sitting in Sonalika tractor and
they were standing in the field. He, therefore, submits
that the application deserves to be allowed.

¶21

3.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents/accused submits that in the FIR, the
informant has stated that the accused were standing in
the field. The prosecution has not brought on record

¶22

that the said field belongs to him and also there is
improvement in the version of Devidas (PW4) inasmuch as,
in his evidence before the Court, he has stated that the
accused were sitting in Sonalika tractor and therefore,
the learned Trial Court, in paragraph No. 12 of the
impugned judgment, has recorded the finding that the
version of Devidas (PW4) is an improvement before the
Court.

¶23

criapln2541-2011

¶24

¶25

4.We have considered the submissions advanced by

¶26

the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the

¶27

respondents. With their able assistance, we have
perused the notes of evidence. Upon careful perusal of
the evidence of Devidas (PW4) and in particular his
cross-examination, it appears that the said witness was
not specifically confronted with the contents in the
FIR. Therefore, in the absence of such exercise in the
cross-examination, prima facie it appears to us that the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in
paragraph No. 12 of the judgment are not correct. In
that view of the matter, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following order :-

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i)The criminal application is allowed.

¶30

(ii)The leave to file appeal is granted.

¶31

(iii)The office to register the appeal.

¶32

(iv)On registration of the appeal, it stands
admitted. On admission of the appeal, the learned

¶33

4 criapln2541-2011

¶34

counsel for the respondents waives notice for them.

¶35

(v)The action under section 390 of the Code of

¶36

Criminal Procedure to follow before the Sessions Court

¶37

at Udgir.

¶38

npj/criapln2541-2011

The State of Mah Thr. Ahmedpur P.S. v. Gopal Sidram Mekle and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah Thr. Ahmedpur P.S. v. Gopal Sidram Mekle and Anr.

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

Rajabhau S/O Dagadu Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharshtra and Other

Vijaysing S/O Nathesing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Shaikh Raju S/O. Shaikh Mehboob and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Kamaloddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shailabai W/O. Gulab Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand S/O Kashiram Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others