Dismissed

Kishor Shankar Kothule v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Nov 2022REVN/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed an application for discharge. The court held that prima facie evidence exists from witness statements indicating the applicant photo-shopped images, finding no error of law in the lower court's rejection of the discharge plea.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kishor Shankar Kothule Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

 1 47-CRA-102-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2022

¶4

KISHOR SHANKAR KOTHULE
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Miss. Siddhi A. Kothari h/f
 Mr. S. G. Ladda
APP for Respondents-State: Mr. K. S. Patil

¶7

 CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

¶8

DATE : 21^st November, 2022

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1. The applicant has preferred revision against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani below Exhibit-195 dated 02.12.2021 rejecting the prayer of discharge.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is no
sufficient material to frame the charge against the applicant. No
incriminating evidence had been there to connect the applicant to prove
or prima facie show that he had replaced the photograph by photo-shop.
The statements of few witnesses are the only evidence against the
applicant. Many other co-accused have been discharged. Considering the
role attributed to the applicant and the material collected by the
Investigating Officer, it is not sufficient to frame the charges.

¶12

 2 47-CRA-102-2022.odt

¶13

3.Learned APP has opposed the application. The prosecution has a
sufficient material to show the involvement of the applicant in the
crime. The witnesses are consistently stating that it is the applicant who
had photo-shopped the photos of the complainant and his wife. Prima
facie, evidence is available against the applicant. The order is free from
error. Hence, cannot be interfered with.

¶14

4.While framing the charge, the Court has to examine the provisions
of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said
Section provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions
of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers
that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he
shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Before
discharge, both the parties are required to be heard and the Court has to
consider the record of the case and documents submitted with the
charge-sheet and form an opinion that there is no sufficient ground to
proceed against the accused.

¶15

5. If there are the grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the Court has to frame the charge. Prima facie, material has to be seen, while framing the charges.

¶16

 3 47-CRA-102-2022.odt

¶17

6.Perused the statements read before this Court by both the
counsels. From the statements of the witnesses, prima facie it appears
that it is the applicant, who had photo-shopped the photos. The oral
statement has evidentiary value that cannot be ignored at the juncture
of framing the charges. The impugned order does not appear that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani while rejecting the prayer
for discharge has committed error of law. There appears no substance in
the application. Hence, the application stands dismissed. No order as to
costs.

¶18

Sameer

Kishor Shankar Kothule v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Shankar Kothule 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja W/O. Nivrutti Gaikwad Vs Nivrutti S/O. Hiraman Gaikwad

Virendra S/O Satish @ Sopanrao Kanoji Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay S/O. Bhiwaji Bhingardive Vs Dattatraya S/O. Tanaji Adballe and Anr.

Vijay Uttam Daspute Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shalubai W/O. Madhukar Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandip Ratan Patil Vs Bhagyashree W/O Sandip Patil and Another