The High Court dismissed a bail application under a criminal appeal. Despite defense arguments that injuries were caused on different days and the trial court found no intent to kill, the court rejected the plea relying on independent prosecution evidence of life-threatening injuries including a ruptured liver.
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.
1 appa-253.19.docx
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2019 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.902 OF 2018
Sachin Madhukar Dhoke … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 9th JULY, 2019.
P.C. :
1 Heard the learned counsel. Our attention is invited to finding in judgment in paragraph 85 where the trial Court holds that there was no intention to cause death of the deceased in assault. With this finding our attention is also invited to the evidence of PW5 - Dr. Mahadev Harkud who has conducted postmortem. The learned counsel submits that though he has deposed about several injuries, his cross-examination reveals that those injuries were not caused on the date of incident or in one assault. It is further submitted that deceased had expired allegedly two to three hours after her last meal and hence, the reason for quarrel between the deceased and the accused namely non-preparation of curry becomes significant. The time of death itself militates with the prosecution story.
1 of 3
2 appa-253.19.docx
Without prejudice to defence of total denial the learned counsel submits that in this situation punishment could have been only under section 304 Part-II IPC. He therefore seeks release on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
3 The learned APP strongly opposes the request. He relies upon evidence of PW5 to show the brutal manner in which the deceased was injured. He submits that the trial Court has little later in same judgment found that the accused had knowledge that the injuries would result in death.
4 Relationship of husband and wife is not in dispute. Submission of applicant that incident took place all of a sudden and there was no premeditation or intention is not very relevant since PW5 – Doctor points out several injuries. He has pointed out that the deceased was beaten by Chappal, by banging her against wall and also iron bar. There were internal injuries though there was no external bleeding or abrasion, blood was found in her abdomen, kidneys had haemorrhaged, liver was ruptured and tracheal rings were fractured.
5 In cross-examination effort has been made to show that age of injury was not determined by Doctor and on that basis contention is all these injuries were not caused on same day.
6 At this stage, we are not inclined to accept this defence. Deposition of PW5 – Doctor is consistent and though he may not have determined age, he has pointed out that injuries were grievous in nature.
2 of 3
3 appa-253.19.docx
Kidneys haemorrhage, ruptured liver and tracheal fracture cannot be seen as simple injuries. The injuries are life threatening. Moreover, daughter of deceased PW4 is eye-witness.
7 We therefore reject the application.
(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused should be released on bail given the trial court's finding of no intent to cause death versus prosecution evidence of grievous injuries.
Establishment of the timeline of injuries in relation to the deceased’s death.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Madhukar Dhoke
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
