Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vishnu Santu Jamdar and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2020APEAL/1379/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged the acquittal of respondents for offences under the IPC. The appellant requested dismissal noting the settled law that the appellate court should not interfere when two views are possible. The court dismissed the appeal without further engagement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the view taken by the trial court was a possible view and could not be faulted.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vishnu Santu Jamdar and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/3

¶2

213.Apeal1379.03.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1379 OF 2003

¶6

The State of Maharashtra	)….Appellant
V/s.	(Org.Complai
1) Vishnu Santu Jamdar	)
Age about 75 years, Occ. Agri	)
2) Rejendra @ Rajaram Vishnu Jamdar	)
Age about 27 years, Occ.Service	)
3) Ashok Vishnu Jamdar	)
Age about 39 years, Occ. Agri	)
4) Subhash Vishnu Jamdar	)
Age about 36 years, Occ. Service	)
5) Kiran Bhagwan Waghmare	)
Age about 26 years, Occ. Education	)
6) Sarjerao Dadu Patil Age about 29 years, Occ. Agri	) )
7) Babaso Shankar Patil	)
Age about 29 years, Occ. Agri	)
8) Ananda Dattu Patil	)
Age about 25 years, Occ. Agri	)
9) Kondiba Chandrappa Patil	)
Age about 70 years, Occ. Agri	)
[As per Court’s order dated 4.1.2029	)
appeal stands abated]	)
10) Rangrao Yashwant Patil	)
Age about 31 years, Occ. Agri	)

¶7

(Org.Complainant)

¶8

¶9

2/3 213.Apeal1379.03.doc

¶10

Mansing Vishnu Patil ) Age about 26 years, Occ. Agri ) All r/o Nerle, Tal. Shahuwadi, ) Dist. Kolhapur ) ....Respondents (Org.Accused nos.1 to 11)

¶11

Ms.Anamika Malhotra APP for appellant-State. None for respondents.

¶12

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 24.2.2020

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶14

This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur at Shahuwadi on 18.8.2003 acquitting the respondents (accused) of offences punishable under Sections 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon) and 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶15

Learned APP Ms.Malhotra states that respondent no.9 has died and therefore, appeal against respondent no.9 is abated.

¶16

As regards the other accused, learned APP states that it is settled law that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should

¶17

¶18

3/3 213.Apeal1379.03.doc

¶19

not interfere. Learned APP states that having considered the impugned judgment and the evidence, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and cannot be faulted with. Therefore, true to her role as an officer of the Court, learned APP submits that the Court may dismiss the appeal.

¶20

In view of this candid statement of the learned APP which

¶21

is appreciated by the Court, appeal dismissed.

¶22

The State of Maharashtra v. Vishnu Santu Jamdar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vishnu Santu Jamdar 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

Ahm Marine Llc Vs O.S.V Dolphin Beas and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Madhukar Gulabrao Shelke

Shriram Sahakari Krishi Audyogik Use Todani and Vahatuk Sanstha Ltd. Vs Ashruba Namdeo Golhar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shrikrishna Kundlik Waghchavare and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dhanpal Shivmurthi Koravi and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shrikrishna Kundlik Waghchavare and Ors.