High Court granted bail to a convicted appellant charged with murder under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The court highlighted inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and identified here a non-role for the applicant in the assault. Bail granted as per terms.
Granted bail on Rs. 30,000 with sureties and P.R. Bond; reporting to police station once month.
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.
15. cri appa 573-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 573 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2017
Vinayak Madhav Chavan .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Appearances Mr. M.S. Mohite a/w Mr. Ashish Sawant i/by Mr. Shantanu R. Phanse Advocate for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MAY 2, 2017.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The applicant is
now seeking bail.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5
15. cri appa 573-17.doc
with accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted Sachin, Sagar and Kailas. There are two eye witnesses to the incident i.e PW 4 Sheetal who was the sister of deceased Sagar and PW 5 Sandhya Kale who is the constable. PW 5 Sandhya has stated that four persons were assaulting three persons who were lying, however, she has not identified the present applicant before
the Court. The other eye witness i.e PW 4 Sheetal has stated that the incident occurred on 18.7.2012. She knew all the
four accused. On the way, they met Kailas who was the friend of Sachin. Kailas told that accused No. 1 Dattatraya had assaulted Sachin. He told that Sachin was sitting on the footpath. Sheetal then went to Sachin. She saw that Sachin had sustained injuries on his neck and lip. She inquired with Sachin what had happened. Sachin told her that accused No. 1 Dattatraya and accused No. 2 Sagar had assaulted him. Meanwhile, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came near Sachin and Sheetal. They started abusing Sheetal, Sagar and Kailas. Accused No. 2 Sagar Tambade took out a knife and stabbed
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
15. cri appa 573-17.doc
Sagar Lahare. Sheetal and Kailas tried to intervene on which
the accused persons pushed them and started giving fists and kick blows to Kailas. Accused No. 2 Sagar stabbed Kailas
on his abdomen and neck with the knife. Sheetal tried to intervene but accused No. 3 Ghanshaym threatened her. Thereafter, accused No. 2 Sagar assaulted Sachin with knife on his chest and abdomen.
that though in the examination in chief, PW 4 Sheetal has stated that she knew all the four accused, however, it has come in the cross-examination of PW 4 Sheetal that in the FIR, she has not stated she knew all the four accused. She admitted that she had disclosed the names of three accused
and she had disclosed the description of the fourth person as wearing thick spectacles, however, in her examination, she
has stated that accused No. 2 Sagar who was wearing spectacles had assaulted Sachin. In addition, Mr. Mohite
pointed out that the fact that accused Nos. 1 to 4 abused
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5
15. cri appa 573-17.doc
them is an omission which is seen from paragraph 25 of the evidence of PW 4 Sheetal. He also pointed out that Sheetal has stated in paragraph 25 that she was knowing the fourth assailant but she cannot assign any reason why it is not written so in her complaint. She has further stated that she did not remember if she had given description of fourth assailant to the police while lodging the complaint or even
before the Magistrate. It is seen that no role of assault with weapon to any of the deceased is attributed to the present applicant. Looking to the evidence and the omissions brought on record, we are inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
O R D E R
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5
15. cri appa 573-17.doc
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
5 of 5
jfoanz vkacsjdj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder tried under Section 34 IPC) when eyewitness testimony reveals inconsistencies and omissions regarding the applica
Whether the discrepancy between the identification of witnesses and the accused and the applicant's lack of specific role attribution in assaulting the deceased warrants release on bail.
Requisite terms of bail including amount, sureties, and reporting conditions.
Vinayak Madhav Chavan
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
