Dismissed

Kishor Pandharinath Satkar v. Tushar @ Gotya Tanaji Satkar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2018APPLN/118/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application filed by the victim to challenge the acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The High Court rejected the argument that the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC should be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and recoveries, holding no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed off; no interference with the acquittal of the accused.

Kishor Pandharinath Satkar Vs Tushar @ Gotya… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

APPA118.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2017

¶5

Kishor Pandharinath Satkar … Applicant v/s Tushar @ Gotya Tanaji Satkar and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr Abhaykumar Apte for Applicant. Mr J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent - State.

¶7

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶8

DATE : JANUARY 9, 2018

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The present Application is filed by the victim seeking leave

¶11

to appeal against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.263 of 2014 thereby acquitting the Respondents - Accused. The delay in filing this Application is condoned.

¶12

It is the prosecution case that the deceased Pandharinath Satkar was assaulted by the accused persons. It is the prosecution

1/3

VRD

APPA118.17

case that the accused had given blow on the head of the deceased by rifle as a result of which the deceased succumbed to injury an died.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the learned Trial Judge has grossly erred in acquitting the accused. He submitted that when the ballistic report shows that the bullet which is found on the person of deceased could have been fired from the revolver, therefore the learned Trial Judge could not have acquitted the accused.

¶18

The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is very well crystallized. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove each and every incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is further required to establish chain of circumstances so proved, which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused.

¶19

In the present case, it would reveal that the prosecution

¶20

has relied on the circumstances of certain recoveries at the instance of

¶21

the accused person. According to the prosecution, the said recoveries

2/3

VRD

APPA118.17

are made on the basis of memorandums of accused under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

¶26

In so far as recovery on the basis of memorandum under

¶27

section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, only such recoveries which are made from a place exclusively within the knowledge of the accused could be admissible.

¶28

In so far as recoveries are concerned, some are from open place. In so far as hand-made revolver is concerned, it was recovered at the instance of Yuvraj Mane from roof of bus stop of Tikona Peth.

¶29

Another circumstances is recovery of clothes as described.

¶30

We find that only on the said circumstances, conviction under section 302 of IPC could not be made.

¶31

We find that no interference is warranted in the present case. Application is disposed off.

¶32

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶33

(B.R. GAVAI, J.)

¶34

3/3

¶35

VRD

Kishor Pandharinath Satkar v. Tushar @ Gotya Tanaji Satkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Pandharinath Satkar v. Tushar @ Gotya Tanaji Satkar 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

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Sunil Dinanath Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anala Pandit Vs Director, Directorate of Technical Education and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Zakiya Mumtaz Khan @ Zakiya Abdul Malik Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay (Education Dept.) Annd 3 Ors.

Shri. Asif Adam Shaikh and Ors. Vs Administrative Officer, Primary Education Board, Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Ganesh Subhash Dhore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.