The High Court of Mumbai rejected an application for bail filed by an applicant convicted of murder. Despite the applicant arguing that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence, the court cited Supreme Court precedents holding that such confessions can ground a conviction if corroborated, thus refusing bail.
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.
8. cri appa 223-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2015
Nana Uddhav Gaikwad
.. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
Mr. V.V. Purwant Advocate for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 17, 2017.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
2. The applicant - original accused has been convicted
under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of Prakash @
Rajesh on 30.12.2012 at about 8.15 p.m. The applicant is
now seeking bail.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
8. cri appa 223-17.doc
but the evidence on record shows that the applicant made an extra judicial confession to PW 2 Praveen and PW 3 Gajanan. PW 2 Praveen has stated that on 30.12.2012, there was a birthday party. During the party, on account of casual teasing, altercation took place between deceased Rajesh and Dayanand. Dayanand is the brother of the applicant. Rajesh
and Dayanand abused each other. Thereafter, Praveen, the applicant and Gajanan went to the house of one Usha. The applicant suddenly disappeared from the house of Usha without any intimation to them. Praveen and Gajanan stayed in the house of Usha upto 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, Praveen and Gajanan went to the house of the applicant to see whether the applicant had come to his house. While they were approaching the house of the applicant, they saw the applicant coming towards his house. On inquiry with the applicant, the applicant told Praveen and Gajanan that he had caused injury on the head of Rajesh (deceased) by
means of a big stone and killed him. The evidence of PW 3
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
8. cri appa 223-17.doc
Gajanan is on similar lines as that of PW 2 Praveen.
submitted that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and a conviction cannot be sustained on the same,
hence, the applicant may be released on bail.
of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 held that :
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
8. cri appa 223-17.doc
applicant, hence, the application for bail is rejected.
However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
4 of 4
jfoanz vkacsjdj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an applicant convicted under Section 302 IPC relying on extra-judicial confessions.
Whether an extra-judicial confession corroborated by other evidence can sustain a conviction for murder.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sansar Chand Vs State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604Explained¶33
Thimma and Thimma Raju Vs. State of Mysore - (1970) 2 SCC 105Referred¶33
Mulk Raj Vs. State of U.P. - AIR 1959 SC 902Referred¶33
Sivakumar Vs State - (2006) 1 SCC 714Referred¶33
Shiva Karan Payaswami Tewari Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 262Referred¶33
Mohd. Azad Vs State of W.B. - (2008) 15 SCC 449Referred¶33
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nana Uddhav Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
M.S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
