The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.896 of 2017 rejected an application for bail filed by an accused convicted of murder. The court held that independent witness testimonies supported the prosecution's case and dying declaration, rendering peripheral inconsistencies irrelevant.
The bail application was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
14-APPA-221-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.896 OF 2017
| Shankar Gangadhar Jogdand Vs |
… Applicant |
|---|---|
| The State of Maharashtra |
... Respondents |
Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade for the Applicant. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
COR AM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & SANDEEP K. SHINDE JJ. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2019
P.C. :
Applicant-Accused has been convicted under Section 302
of the IPC for committing murder of a lady by name Radha and claiming to be his wife, is seeking bail urging that material on record is insufficient and dying declaration does not inspire confidence.
2 The incident is narrated by P.W.4 and 5, who are
independent persons. P.W.3 is also independent person, who has turned hostile.
Shivgan 1/3
14-APPA-221-2019.odt
3 Radha had disclosed the incident dated 17 th December,
2013 to these persons and also to the police officer, P.W.1.
4 She pointed out that her husband was not residing with her and he had an affair with some woman. She, therefore, went to Rahul Lodge at about 4 p.m. to verify and found him talking with other woman. She, therefore, told her husband to come home. She did not leave the spot and at about 10 or 10.30 in the night was sitting by fire, warning herself. Her husband arrived there and was persuading her to leave the place. She did not accept to leave.
5 She stated that her husband was having a bottle containing petrol and also match-stick. He poured petrol on her person and ignited. She started shouting. Passers by extinguished fire on her person. They also caught hold of the husband, who was trying to run away. She was admitted to the hospital.
6 This narration is supported by her dying declaration as recorded by PW 1. On the basis of that statement, FIR has been registered.
7 Though P.W.3 has turned hostile, P.W.4 and 5 have
Shivgan 2/3
14-APPA-221-2019.odt
deposed in favour of Radha and they also pointed out facts disclosed
to them by Radha.
8 Effort of the applicant is to work out inconsistencies. At this stage, those inconsistencies in peripheral aspects are irrelevant. On material aspects, witnesses P.W.4 and 5 have supported the prosecution.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
(B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Shivgan 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused convicted under Section 302 IPC on the ground of insufficient material and lack of confidence in the dying declaration.
Whether inconsistencies in peripheral aspects of the evidence defeat the prosecution case supported by independent witnesses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Gangadhar Jogdand
The State of Maharashtra
Sandeep K. Shinde
B.P. Dharmadikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
