Allowed

Shankar Tayappa Naik v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Jan 2017APPA/846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for suspension of sentence pending appeal, the court considered conflicting testimonies regarding the use of sickles during an assault. Finding that injured witnesses did not attribute the use of sickles to the applicant, the court allowed the application and suspended the substantive sentence.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended pending disposal of the appeal. The applicant is released on bail on executing a PR Bond of Rs.15,000/-.

Shankar Tayappa Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

14-APPA-846-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.846 OF 2016 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.507 OF 2016

¶5

Shankar T. Naik

¶6

)...Applicant

¶7

V/s. State OF Maharashtra )...Respondent

¶8

Mr. V.B.Koshe i/by Mr.S.H.Deokar, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr. P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 24^th JANUARY 2017.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶13

releasing the applicant-accused no.4 on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶14

2 In all five accused persons including the present applicant faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 307 read with 120B/34 of IPC as well as under Sections 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, under

¶15

Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and

¶16

Shivgan 1/5

¶17

14-APPA-846-2016.doc

¶18

under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1988. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.2016, the learned Special Judge, Pune held that the present applicant as well as co-accused except accused no.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 37 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. For the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the applicant-accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under the Maharashtra Police Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

¶19

3 The learned advocate for the applicant-accused no.4 drew my attention to evidence of P.W.1 Vinayak Memane and P.W.2 Durvesh and argued that evidence of both these injured witnesses shows that there were only three sickles and none of these two

¶20

Shivgan 2/5

¶21

14-APPA-846-2016.doc

¶22

witnesses are attributing sickle to the applicant-accused. He argued that even medical officer, who treated the injured is not examined by the prosecution.

¶23

4 The learned APP argued that the incident is undisputed. The prosecution witnesses have identified the applicant-accused as assailant. He pointed out that witness is stating that applicant had purchased three sickles.

¶24

5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and order apart from deposition of relevant witnesses. As per version of P.W.1 Vinayak Memane, when he and P.W.2 Durvesh were proceeding on two wheeler vehicle , they were obstructed by all accused persons who came there on two two wheeler vehicles. As per version of P.W.1 Vinayak, co-accused Chunya took three sickels from their two two wheeler vehicles and handed over one to co-accused Sachin and another to Shahenshah. P.W.1-Vinayak stated that Chunya kept one sickle with him and by those sickles, he as well as his associate P.W.2-Durvesh were assaulted by accused persons. P.W.1-Vinayak is attributing the role of assault by knife to P.W.2 Durvesh to

Shivgan 3/5

14-APPA-846-2016.doc

applicant Shankar.

6 As against this, P.W.2-Durvesh deposed that co-accused Chunya removed three sickles from two two wheeler vehicles, handed over one to co-accused Shahenshah, one to co-accused Sachin, himself held one sickle and then accused persons assaulted him by sickle. Injured P.W.2 Durvesh is not stating that he came to be assaulted by knife by the present applicant.

¶29

7 Evidence of injured witnesses as such shows that there were three sickles with the assailants. Their evidence shows that applicant-accused was not holding any of those three sickles. Injured P.W.2-Durvesh is not claiming that he was assaulted by knife, as stated by P.W.1-Vinayak.

¶30

8 Though prosecution is attributing Section 34 to accused persons, in the wake of this evidence of injured witneses against the present applicant-accused, considering the fact that accused persons are acquitted of the offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act, the applicant-accused deserves liberty and, therefore, the order:

¶31

(1) Application is allowed.

¶32

Shivgan 4/5

¶33

14-APPA-846-2016.doc

¶34

(2) The substantive sentence of imprisonment

¶35

imposed upon the applicant-accused is suspended till disposal of the appeal and he is directed to be released on bail on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶36

(3) As a condition of this order, the applicantaccused to attend the concerned police station once in two months, i.e. on the first Monday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. till disposal of the appeal

¶37

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶38

Shivgan 5/5

Shankar Tayappa Naik v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Tayappa Naik 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Savta Adsul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Gorakh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Eknath Nerkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Metropolitan Infra Housing Privat Limited Vs S.S. Agarwal and Anr.

Anjali Vinay Bambole Vs CBI Acb Mumbai and Anr.

Jai Jyotawali Steel Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. Vs a. Navinchandra Infrarealty Ltd. and Anr.