Dismissed

Ashish Dnyanoba Dhakane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Sept 2021APPLN/1735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application for bail and suspension of sentence filed by an assistant police officer convicted under Section 307 IPC. The court found evidence sufficient to implicate the appellant and held that liberation would not serve the interests of justice given his dismissal from service.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of substantive sentence and bail is dismissed.

Ashish Dnyanoba Dhakane Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 Cri. Application No. 1735-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1735 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2021

¶4

AshishS/o Dnyanoba Dhakane, Age : 34 Years, Occ. Service, As Police Naik, Buckle No. 618, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad R/o. Dhaknewadi, Post Nandurghat, Tq. Kaij, District Beed.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Anandnagar Police Station, Osmanabad.

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel i/by Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for the Applicant/ appellant

¶10

Mr. S. N. Morampalle, A.P.P for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. DATE : 07.09.2021

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

The applicant/appellant is seeking suspension of substantive sentence passed against him in Sessions Case No.

¶14

137 of 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. It is contended that the applicant/appellant was

¶15

2 Cri. Application No. 1735-2021.odt

¶16

prosecuted for the ofences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of victim Manisha Giri. The victim Manisha is working as a Police Sub Inspector at Osmanabad. The applicant/appellant was also working in police department in Osmanabad. Victim Manisha was residing at Flat No. 8, Nirmal Apartment, Osmababad. Manisha alleged that on 31^st May 2019, at about 5.45 a.m, the applicant/appellant came to his house. He assaulted her and by overpowering her, took her to the terrace situated on the 4^th Floor of the building and threw her from the terrace. She sustained multiple injuries. The persons of nearby area shifted her to Pulse Hospital, Osmanabad, on the way to the Hospital, applicant/appellant joined the said persons and helped the victim Manisha. It is contended that Manisha was in depression, she was making allegations against her superior ofcers. Therefore, the report was lodged against her under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

It is contended that on 29^th June, 2019, a statement of Manisha was recorded wherein, she alleged that the applicant/appellant assaulted her and threw her from the terrace, therefore, ofence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. After framing of the

¶18

3 Cri. Application No. 1735-2021.odt

¶19

charge, the prosecution relied on evidence of twenty four witnesses. It is contended that the trial Court has not considered the defence of the applicant/appellant. There was material on record that Manisha was claiming to be the wife of the applicant/appellant and she was suspecting relation between the applicant/appellant and one Rupali Kamble. It is also contended that Manisha had been to the house of Rupali and claimed herself to be the wife of the appellant. It is contended that there is possibility that due to depression, Manisha committed suicide by jumping from the terrace but she falsely implicated the applicant/appellant. It is contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and come to a wrong conclusion. It is contended that due to conviction, show cause notice is issued to the applicant/appellant and there is possibility of his dismissal from the service. Hence it is prayed that the sentence imposed on the applicant be suspended and he be released on bail.

¶20

The application is vehemently opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is contended that there is sufcient evidence against the applicant to prove his involvement in the crime. It is contended that the evidence of

¶21

4 Cri. Application No. 1735-2021.odt

¶22

victim Manisha is cogent and reliable, which is relied upon by the trial Court. It is also contended that the applicant/appellant has cheated victim Manisha and continued his illicit relations with her. It is contended that the prosecution has proved the charge against the applicant, therefore, it is prayed that the application be rejected.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and learned A.P.P on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant took me through the evidence of almost all witnesses. The crucial evidence is of Manisha Giri, who has categorically deposed that in the morning of 31^st May, 2019, the applicant came to her house, on opening the door the applicant assaulted her and lifted her forcefully and brought her to the terrace of the building and then threw her from the terrace. She has deposed that she had sexual relations with the applicant. She has also stated that the applicant pretends that he is unmarried but the victim came to know that the applicant was already married. It is also alleged by the victim that the applicant was suspecting her character. There used to be quarreled between the applicant and Manisha. No doubt, initially, the ofense under

¶25

5 Cri. Application No. 1735-2021.odt

¶26

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the victim but the said report was converted into crime against the applicant. Admittedly, after the incident, Manisha was unconscious for long period. She regain the consciousness in the hospital, but she was unable to speak, ultimately on 29.06.2019, her statement was recorded by the Investigating Ofcer wherein, she disclosed the incident and accordingly she deposed the same. The parents and brothers of the victim Manisha also deposed against the applicant. It appears from the evidence that applicant had sexual relationship with Manisha but he had no intention to marry her. It is also came from the evidence of witness Mohmad Amjad Khan Yunus Khan Pathan (PW8) and his son Javed Amjad Khan Pathan (PW 10) Pathan that they rescued Manisha immediately after the incident, when they were shifting Manisha to hospital the appellant came there. So it can be said that the applicant was found nearby the building of victim soon after the incident, which is also substantiated the theory of the victim that the applicant had visited her house. No doubt there is no eye witness to the incident but the evidence of victim is sufcient to implicate the appellant in the crime.

¶27

The applicant and the victim are members of the police

¶28

¶29

Cri. Application No. 1735-2021.odt

¶30

force. There is sufcient evidence against the applicant, therefore, it would not be just and reasonable to enlarge the applicant on bail. Similarly, the applicant is dismissed from the service, therefore, suspension of sentence may not help the applicant. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the applicant/appellant has not made out case for bail and suspension of substantive sentence. Hence, I pass proceed to pass following order

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Application is dismissed.

¶33

( SURENDRA P. TAVADE ) JUDGE

¶34

ysk

Ashish Dnyanoba Dhakane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Dnyanoba Dhakane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandanlal S/O. Surajlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Popat Maruti Kutal Vs Shakuntala W/O. Kaushik More and Others

Tryambak Sakharam Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Amol Sanjay Valave Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pralhad Kathalu Shejul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra Malhari Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another