Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Kakasaheb Arun Borkar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2018ALS/27/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction rejected the State's application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The Court held that the Trial Court's view accepting discrepancies between the informant's statement and medical records was reasonable given the defence explanation of a stampede.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kakasaheb Arun Borkar… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

48-als-27-16

1 /2

Nalawade

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2016 The State of Maharashtra vs. Kakasaheb A. Borkar and ors.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or Court’s or Judge’s orders directions and Registrar’s orders

¶8

Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM :A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 09^th March, 2018

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This is an application under Section 378(3() of Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

¶12

Karmala, District Solapur in RCC No.81/2004 thereby acquitting the respondents from an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Heard the learned APP and perused the record,.

¶14

The evidence on record indicates that there are material

¶15

discrepancies in the statement made by the first informant about the injuries suffered by him at the hands of respondent No.1 and the medical record produced by the Medical officer.

¶16

That the injuries mentioned by the first informant before the

¶17

Court do not found place in the medical record. It is the defence

¶18

of the respondent that the first informant suffered the said injuries in the crowd at the village fair. It has also come on record that crowd was very large and the injuries suffered by the informant might have caused in the stampede. In the cross examination the Medical Officer has admitted that such injuries are possible in the stampede. The leaned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

¶19

After perusing the record this Court is of the opinion that the view adopted by the Trial Court is a reasonable and probable view in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶20

No case for grant of leave is made out.

¶21

Application is accordingly rejected.

The State of Maharashtra v. Kakasaheb Arun Borkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Kakasaheb Arun Borkar and Ors.

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

Standard Chartered Bank Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahesh Bohra Vs Central Burau of Investigation and Anr.

Ketan Vinaychandra Parekh Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Satish Shivaji Patil Vs Bhagyashree Hambirrao and Anr.

Tushar Arun Mane Vs Mangal Dinkarrao Jadhav and Anr.

Jogindersingh @ Zokia Raghubirsingh Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra