Dismissed

Amol Gopalsingh Maher v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal (Rural) and Others

Bombay HC30 Jan 2018APEAL/16/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the plea for leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of respondents 2-4. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge's order, finding the prosecution failed to prove kidnapping with intent to kill via circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of leave to file appeal against acquittal was rejected.

Amol Gopalsingh Maher Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

3001appa79.16.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.79/2016 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16/2016

¶5

Amol Gopalsingh Maher ...Versus...

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Yavatmal (Rural) and others

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

¶11

Shri M.P. Kariya, Counsel for applicant/appellant Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.P.P. for respondent no.1

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. DATE : 30/01/2018

¶13

Heard.

¶14

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal dated 23/9/2015 in Sessions Case No.80/2013, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence on record to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent nos.2 to 4 had kidnapped the deceased with an intention to kill him and had knowingly caused his death. We find on a reading of the judgment that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete. We further find that the recovery is not proved. The chemical analyzer's report also does not support the case of the

¶15

3001appa79.16.odt

¶16

¶17

prosecution. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the accused were entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

¶18

No case is made out by the applicant/appellant for grant of leave to file the appeal. Hence, the prayer made by the applicant/appellant for grant of leave to file the appeal against the acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to 4 is rejected.

¶19

The criminal application as well as criminal appeal stand disposed of accordingly.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

Wadkar

Amol Gopalsingh Maher v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal (Rural) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Gopalsingh Maher v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal (Rural) and Others

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

Shri. Akshay S/O Dharma Madavi, Thr. P.O.A. Holder, Purshottam S/O Wasudeo Kulmathe and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur and Another

Aliyar Khan Miyan Khan and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer P.S. Old City Akola and Another

Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

Gulab S/O Madhukar Nale and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, P.S. Rajura and Another

Amol Gopalsingh Maher Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal (Rural) and Others

Purushottam S/O Dinkar Choudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.