Dismissed

Narayan S/O Pandurang Thakre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Sept 2016APPLN/6810/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order disposing of a Criminal Application for suspension of conviction and bail. The High Court rejected the application, concluding the informant was an eye-witness and evidence was sufficient, thus denying bail. The record was remanded for paper-book preparation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application rejected; record remanded for paper-book preparation; applicant not entitled to bail.

Narayan S/O Pandurang Thakre Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cra6810.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6810 OF 2015 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.931 OF 2015

¶7

Narayan s/o Pandurang Thakre,
Age-27 years, Occu:Labourer,
R/o-Pimpri(Vadjai),
Tq. & Dist-Dhule

¶8

...APPLICANT

¶9

 (Orig. Accused)

¶10

 VERSUS

¶11

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Mohadinagar Police Station,
Tq. & Dist-Dhule.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

...

¶14

 Mr. R.S. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. N.L.
 Choudhari Advocate for Applicant.
 Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶17

 DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2016

¶18

ORAL ORDER [PER V.K. JADHAV, J.] :

¶19

1.The Applicant - accused is convicted by

¶20

cra6810.15

¶21

¶22

the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule by Judgment
and order dated 2nd December 2015 in Sessions Case
No.59 of 2015 for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code and
thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default he should suffer simple
imprisonment for 50 days. The Applicant-accused

¶23

has challenged the said Judgment and order of
conviction by preferring the present Appeal. The
Applicant also filed the Application for
suspension of the order of conviction and to
release him on bail till the disposal of the
Appeal.

¶24

2.The learned counsel for the Applicant

¶25

submits that the evidence of informant appears to
be improbable for many reasons. Furthermore,
though in the prosecution evidence it has come

¶26

before the Sessions Court that victim was a person

¶27

of unsound mind, the medical officer who had

¶28

cra6810.15

¶29

¶30

examined the said victim, had given such an
opinion about the unsound mind some 20 to 22 years
back. Learned counsel submits that the C.A. Report
in respect of vaginal swab and pubic hair is
negative and as per the report no semen was
detected. Learned counsel submits that even though
the semen was detected on petticoat, the blood
group of accused is not available for comparison
since the result of the analysis of the blood of
the accused was inconclusive.

¶31

3.The learned A.P.P. submits that the

¶32

informant is the eye witness to the incident and
she had actually witnessed that the accused was
committingintercoursewiththevictim.
Furthermore, the informant had tried to throw
chili powder in the eyes of the accused in order
to prevent him continuing the intercourse,
however, she could not succeed. Furthermore, it

¶33

has come in the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Jitendra
Sachdev that though he had examined victim long

¶34

cra6810.15

¶35

¶36

back, according to his opinion the victim is
suffering from chronic schizophrenia and she is of
unsound mind and disease of victim is not curable.

¶37

Learned A.P.P. submits that even PW-4 Dr.
Pravinkumar has also deposed that the victim was
insane and not oriented to time, place and
persons. Learned A.P.P. lastly submits that blood
group of the accused was of "B" and as per the
C.A. Reports, the semen was detected on the
pettycoat and it was of blood group "B". Learned
A.P.P. submits that Applicant-accused was not on
bail during the course of trial and since there is
sufficient evidence, he has been rightly convicted
by the Additional Sessions Judge and is not
entitled for bail.

¶38

4.Considering the above submissions and the

¶39

fact that informant is eye witness to the
incident, we are not inclined to grant bail to the
Applicant-accused. Thus the following order:

¶40

cra6810.15

¶41

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(I) Criminal Application No.6801 of
2015 is hereby rejected.

¶44

(II) Record and Proceedings be send back
to the trial Court forthwith for
preparation of the Paper-Book and after
completion of the Paper-Book the
Applicant-accused would be at liberty to
file an application for early hearing of
the Appeal.

¶45

[V.K. JADHAV, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/SEP16

Narayan S/O Pandurang Thakre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan S/O Pandurang Thakre 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Rajeshwarrao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratibha Lakha Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Vithal Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahadev S/O. Bhausaheb Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Baban @ Dinkar Sitaram Parkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishnu S/O Kashinathrao Ghatul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.