Single judge rejected an application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of appeal in a case under Section 307 IPC. The court held that the injury to the victim was grievous and sufficient to cause death, making bail inappropriate.
Application for suspension of sentence and release on bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4-APPA-158-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.83 OF 2017
Shankar Hanumant Nagam
)...Applicant
V/s. State Of Maharashtra )...Respondent
Mr. V.V.Ingawale, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.D.Kamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2017.
P.C. :
This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal filed by him. The applicant-accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and he has been sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo SI for three months.
2 Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-accused. He argued that during the pendency of the
Shivgan
4-APPA-158-2017.doc
trial, the applicant-accused was on bail and he has not misused his liberty. It is further argued that different doctors have given different versions about the injuries suffered by alleged victim. It is further argued that eye witnesses are friends and relatives of the victim. Injury on person of the accused is not explained by the prosecution.
3 The learned APP opposed the application by drawing my attention to the evidence of doctors and argued that considering the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the victim, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be released on bail.
4 I have carefully considered the submissions and also perused the copies of the deposition of prosecution witnesses as well as the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
5 The incident in question took place on 4.10.2012. Initially, the applicant-accused quarreled with a person named Abhishek. Quarrel was pacified by the persons who gathered there. This happened at about 9.30 p.m. Subsequently, at about 11.45 p.m. when P.W.5-Kiran Sarvande-injured victim along with his brother P.W.1-Suraj, P.W.4-Manohar Nalawade and others were
Shivgan 2/5
4-APPA-158-2017.doc
chitchatting in the locality, the applicant-accused came there and picked up quarrel with them by questioning them as to why they had intervened in his quarrel with Abhishek. Thereafter, according to the prosecution case, the applicant-accused whipped out knife and gave blows thereof to injured P.W.5-Kiran Sarvande. He was immediately taken to hospital.
6 Evidence of P.W.9-Dr. Ayub Lalkhan Pathan shows following 5 injuries on person of P.W.5-Kiran Sarvande:
“i) stab wound- 2 cm x 2 cm on left side of chest
ii) Stab wound- 1 cm x 2 cm in epigastic region
iii) stab wound- 2 cm x 2 cm in left illac fossa
iv) stab wound- 2 cm x 2 cm mid axillary line.
v) Stab wound-1 cm x 1 cm near ilac crest.”
7 Similar is the version of P.W.7-Dr.Nishant Uday Rao.
PW6-Dr. Matchvel had noticed four stabbed injuries on person of
injured P.W.5-Kiran Sarvande.
Shivgan 3/5
4-APPA-158-2017.doc
8 For making out offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, causing injuries to the victim is not at all required. What is material is the intention coupled with an overt act. In the case in hand, weapon of offence was knife. Injuries to the victim were on the vital parts such as chest, epigastic region on illac fossa as well as mid axillary line. Attending medical officer in terms has deposed that injuries on P.W.5-Kiran Sarvande were grievous in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.
9 Offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is warranting imprisonment for life if hurt is caused in attempt to commit murder.
10 Evidence of P.W.10-Dr. Rongmei does not show that the applicant-accused had suffered any injuries. Even otherwise, the prosecution is not obliged to explain trifle injuries on the accused.
11 Nature and circumstances in which the crime is committed is relevant consideration for enlarging the accused on bail. In the case in hand, one Court has come to conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is proved. Prima-
Shivgan 4/5
4-APPA-158-2017.doc
facie, it appears that undue sympathy is shown while imposing the sentence. That aspect will have to be left to the State whether to challenge the sentence imposed on the applicant-accused. Suffice to state that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the
order:
(1) Application is rejected.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
5/5
Shivgan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant-accused convicted under Section 307 IPC during the pendency of appeal.
Whether the nature and circumstances of the crime and the seriousness of injuries to the victim support a grant of bail.
Whether any injury sustained by the accused warrants a relaxation of bail in a case of attempted murder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Hanumant Nagam
State Of Maharashtra
A. M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
