Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Ramrao Mundhe

Bombay HC10 Dec 2018APPLN/5301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal application for leave to file special leave for special appeal against an acquittal. The High Court examined the record and found inconsistencies in witness testimony and injury certificates. It held the trial court's acquittal was a possible view based on insufficient evidence for common object, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings for leave to file appeal against acquittal stood dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh Ramrao Mundhe — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 CrApln 5301-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5301 OF 2016

¶4

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Gajanan Vishwanath Suryawanshi,
Age : 26 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Barshi Naka,
Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

Mahesh Ramrao Mundhe,
Age : 19 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o B & C quarter, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist Osmanabad....Respondents

¶8

.......

¶9

Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, A. P. P. for Applicant-State.

¶10

.......

¶11

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 10-12-2018.

¶12

JUDGMENT : [Per Shri. T. V. Nalawade, J]

¶13

01.The proceedings is filed for grant of leave to
file appeal against the Judgment and Order in Sessions
Case No. 87 of 2014 which was pending in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 149 etc. of I. P. C. Heard the learned A.

¶14

2 CrApln 5301-2016

¶15

P. P. Seen the record of evidence. Seen the reasoning
given by the Trial Court.

¶16

02.The F. I. R. was given by Gajanan. He and his
friends including other injured Rajan were having talk at
the place at about 7.30 PM. The allegations are made that
boys like Lakhan, Vishwajeet and Dhananjay came there and
picked up quarrel with Rajan. Then, they assaulted Rajan
first with fist blows and kicks. The allegations are made
that Dhananjay then went towards the shop and from there
he fetched stick and gave blow of stick on the head of
Rajan and due to that Rajan became unconscious. In the F.
I. R. the name of the present respondent Mahesh was given
by Gajanan.

¶17

03.The case of the prosecution shows that only
respondent Mahesh had crossed the age of 18 years and
others are juvenile accused. Charge was framed. The
evidence of Gajanan shows that Dhananjay had fetched the
stick from his shop and he had given a blow of stick to
Rajan. Evidence of Rajan also shows that Dhananjay had
fetched stick from shop and then Dhananjay had assaulted
him by using the stick. Prosecution wanted to use
provisions of Section 149 of Cr. P. C. For making out
common object, it was necessary to show others and the

¶18

3 CrApln 5301-2016

¶19

Dhananjay had common object of using stick and assaulting
somebody like Rajan. Such inference is not possible on
the basis of evidence given before the Trial Court. No
evidence is given as against the respondent Mahesh that he
actually assaulted either Gajanan or Rajan.

¶20

04.The evidence of doctor PW-8 who issued injury
certificate in respect of Rajan shows that at the time of
admission of Rajan one Amit had given history of
accidental fall from motor cycle. Said Amit is not
examined. There were two injuries found on the head of
Rajan one is contused abrasion and another is fracture.
Thus, there were 2 injuries and the evidence is not
consistent with the substantive evidence given by either
Rajan or Gajanan. All these circumstances are considered

¶21

by the Trial Court for giving decision of acquittal. The
injury certificate in respect of Gajanan shows that he was
examined on 8.4. and not on the day of incident on 7.4.
and he had given history that he was assaulted by using
chain. Such is not the case of the prosecution. Due to
all these circumstances, this Court holds that the view
taken by the Trial Court is a possible view and Nothing
can be achieved by granting leave to file appeal against
the respondent.

¶22

4 CrApln 5301-2016

¶23

05.In the result, proceeding stands dismissed.

¶24

 [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [T. V. NALAWADE]

¶25

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

Dahibhate/-

The State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Ramrao Mundhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Ramrao Mundhe

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shobhabai Laxman Pagore and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Laxman Pagore

M/S Vatan Textile Limited through Its Director Shafique Ahmed Khan Hasan Khan Vs the Union of India and Others

Shaikh Akhtar S/O. Shaikh Noor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shobha Sambhajirao Jadhav Vs Shubhangi Avadhoot Kulkarni

Ambadas Krishna Kudale (Died) through His L.Rs. Shashikala Ambadas Kudale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector / Dy. Collector Land Acq. Medium Project No. 2, and Ors.