Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Dipak @ Makdi Laxman Upadhyay and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2019ALS/87/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the State challenged the acquittal of two respondents charged with murder and grievous hurt, contending that the trial court erred in giving undue importance to the absence of the accused's medical report and the questionable testimony of prosecution eye-witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal rejected; acquittal of respondents upheld.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dipak @ Makdi Laxman… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Nalawade

¶2

21-als-87-19.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2019

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

Dipak @ Makdi Laxman Uadhyay and anr.

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 12^th June, 2019

¶11

PC :

¶12

Learned APP invites our attention to evidence of P.W.1 who claims to

¶13

be eye witness and P.W.8 Dr. Chavan, to urge that their evidence conclusively shows assault by respondents on deceased and injured witnesses and hence acquittal under Section 302 and 326 of I.P.C. is unwarranted. Our attention is also invited to relevant paragraphs of impugned Judgment to show that trial court has given undue importance to absence of report of medical examination of accused persons.

Page-1/3

Nalawade

21-als-87-19.doc

Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents states that genesis of crime is not proved by prosecution. It was a Rangapanchami day and allegedly there was initial dispute on applying colour. Two or three hours thereafter the alleged crime has taken place. He submits that prosecution has listed about five eye witnesses but then for reasons best known, they were not examined. One of them was examined by accused persons as defence witness. Accused persons also examined independent person who happened to be the eye witness to the incident. The trial court has accepted the version of these eye witnesses examined in defence and found that charge cannot be established against the respondents.

¶19

The prosecution points out that scuffle between two groups and use of weapon like wooden rod in it, however, who happened to be aggressor has not been established. The trial court has found that injured witnesses and deceased were under influence of liquor and the eye witnesses pointed out that they came to spot and attacked accused persons. The trial court has found that one witness by name Pooja who happened to be the sister of deceased Rajesh in her statement on 7.3.2015 before police had stated that deceased was suffering from problem of vomiting and kidney (urine). Her statement reveals that she had no doubt about the accidental death of

Page-2/3

21-als-87-19.doc

Nalawade

her brother Rajesh.

The Judgment impugned before us is delivered on 16.3.2017 in Sessions Case No.78 of 2015. Thus, this Judgment is more than two years after the statement of Pooja before police.

¶26

It is in this backdrop, the trial court has found it necessary to look into genesis of crime. The prosecution did not place on record report of medical examination of accused persons.

¶27

If there was attack on accused persons and they were injured, those injuries would have countenanced the defence. Absence of injuries may have assisted the case of prosecution.

¶28

We therefore find that after appreciating the material evidence, possible view has been taken. There is no perversity. Application is therefore rejected.

¶29

(SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶30

( B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶31

¶32

Page-3/3

The State of Maharashtra v. Dipak @ Makdi Laxman Upadhyay and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Dipak @ Makdi Laxman Upadhyay and Anr.

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

Rahul Gajanan Tumbada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kailas Suresh Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishal Ramkrishna Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Zulfikar @ Zulfir Mohd. Yasin Behlim and Anr.

The State of Maharahstra Vs Sachin Raju Dhotre

Zulfikar @ Zulfi Mohd. Yasin Behlim and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra