Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Patangrao Niwrati Jadhav and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2017ALS/20/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to the State to challenge the acquittal by the JMFC of offences under Sections 325, 324, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The court treated the appeal as a Memo of Appeal, admitted it, and issued notice to call for the record.

What did the court decide?

Leave to challenge acquittal granted; application treated as Memo of Appeal, admitted, notice issued for call for record.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Patangrao Niwrati… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8-ALS-20-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2016

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

PATANGRAO NIWRATI JADHAV AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Applicant - State.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 17^th FEBRUARY 2017

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 This is an application by State for seeking leave to

¶12

challenge judgment and order of the learned JMFC, Khanapur, Sangli, thereby acquitting respondents / accused of offences punishable under Sections 325, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶13

2 According to the prosecution case, on 25^th August 2013, informant Ganpati Jadhav had taken out the fuse of the

¶14

avk 1/3

¶15

8-ALS-20-2016.doc

¶16

water pump at the well in the field. Accused persons questioned this act of informant Ganpati Jadhav and assaulted him by means of sticks as well as kick and fist blows. They also assaulted relatives of informant Ganpati Jadhav. According to prosecution case, this assault has caused fracture injury to informant Ganpati Jadhav.

¶17

3 It is seen from evidence of PW6 Dr.Shashikant Bhise that he examined injured informant Ganpati Jadhav on 25^th August 2013 at Rural Hospital, Vita. This witness who is Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, deposed that after examination of the X-ray of the chest of Ganpati Jadhav, he found that two ribs of Ganpati Jadhav from left side had fractured, causing grievous hurt to him.

¶18

4 Injured Ganpati Jadhav is an eye witness to the incident in question, being victim of the crime in question. There are other eye witnesses to the incident. It is prima facie seen that the evidence of the prosecution is jettison by the learned trial

¶19

avk 2/3

¶20

8-ALS-20-2016.doc

¶21

Magistrate for trivial reasons and with perverse findings. Hence the order :

¶22

i) Leave granted.

¶23

ii) The application for leave to appeal be considered as Memo of Appeal.

¶24

iii)Admit.

¶25

iv)Issue notice to respondents.

¶26

v) Call for Record and Proceedings.

¶27

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶28

avk 3/3

The State of Maharashtra v. Patangrao Niwrati Jadhav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Patangrao Niwrati Jadhav 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

Allauddin Jallauddin Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rabiul Islam Humayu Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip R. Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Baburao Bhau Patil and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrakant Vishnu Mohal and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Anil Ramchandra Dhuri and Anr.