Baburao Sitaram Gutthe (Maharaj) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2025APPLN/3161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal; Section 307 IPC attempt to murder; injury by hard and blunt object; sudden quarrel while informant grazing she-goats; no premeditation; Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P. (2001) 9 SCC 211; Bhagwanram Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat 1999 (4) SCC 421; short-term sentence appeal becomes infructuous; Sessions Judge Hingoli Sessions Case No. 43 of 2017; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; personal bond Rs.15,000 with one surety; bail before lower court.

What did the court decide?

Substantive part of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Hingoli (31.7.2025, Sessions Case No. 43 of 2017) suspended till disposal of the appeal; applicant-accused released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15000/- with one surety of the like amount; bail before the lower court. ¶¶24

Baburao Sitaram Gutthe (Maharaj) Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantive sentence imposed on the applicant (convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hingoli) should be suspended and the applicant released on bail till disposal of the appeal. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. (supra), it would be appropriate to suspend the substantive part of sentence and grant bail to the applicant.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the impugned judgment and witness depositions, the injuries to the head of the informant were caused by a hard and blunt object, which does not prima facie establish the essential ingredients of attempt to commit murder.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The quarrel took place all of a sudden while the informant was grazing she-goats; there was no preparation or premeditation on the part of the applicant. The Court expressly stated that at this stage all these observations are prima facie in nature.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.), 21.08.2025 — Criminal Application No. 3161 of 2025 in APEAL/609/2025, Baburao Sitaram Gutthe (Maharaj) v. State of Maharashtra: The applicant, convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hingoli (Sessions Case No. 43 of 2017, judgment dated 31.07.2025) in a case argued as one of attempt to murder (S.307 I.P.C.), sought suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. Observing that injury No.1 on the informant was caused by a hard and blunt object, that the quarrel arose suddenly while the informant was grazing she-goats, and that there was no preparation or premeditation — observations expressly made prima facie — and applying the ratio in Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 211 (which itself quotes Bhagwanram Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (4) SCC 421, on suspending short sentences during pendency of appeal), the Court allowed the application, suspended the substantive sentence till disposal of the appeal, and released the applicant on bail on a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, bail to be furnished before the lower court.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:22826

¶2

cran3161.25

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

996 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3161 OF 2025 IN APEAL/609/2025

¶6

Baburao Sitaram Gutthe (Maharaj) VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nitin U. Telgaonkar APP for Respondent: Mr. G.O. Wattamwar

¶9

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 21^st AUGUST, 2025.

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

The applicant-original accused has preferred appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Hingoli, district Hingoli, dated 31.07.2025 in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2017 and filed this application for suspension of sentence and for bail, till disposal of the appeal.

¶12

Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out injury No.1 sustained to the informant caused by hard and blunt object, which does not establish the intention to kill him. He also pointed out injury

¶13

No.2 sustained to the thumb of the informant. He submitted that essential ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. are not establishing. For that purpose, he had pointed out the statements of witnesses. He placed reliance on the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶14

cran3161.25

¶15

-1-

¶16

case of Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. (2001) 9 SCC 211 , in which in para 3, it is observed as under:-

¶17

“3. This Court has held in Bhagwanram Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (4) SCC 421 : that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. In such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellate Court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be danger to the society or any other similar difficulties”.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has committed serious crime of attempt to commit murder. The witnesses have supported the informant and an axe used for commission of crime has been seized. There is strong evidence against the applicant, which establishes essential ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. He prayed for rejection of application.

¶19

On perusal of impugned judgment and the deposition of

¶20

cran3161.25 -1-

¶21

witnesses, it reveals that injuries caused to the head of the informant was caused by hard and blunt object which does not prima facie establish the essential ingredients of attempt to commit murder. The quarrel took place all of a sudden while the informant was grazing she-goats. There was no such preparation or premeditation on the part of the applicant. At this stage, all these observations are prima facie in nature. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the authority of Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. (supra) , it would be appropriate to suspend the substantiate part of sentence and grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

I. Criminal application is hereby allowed

¶24

II. The substantive part of sentence passed as against the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Hingoli, district Hingoli, dated 31.7.2025 in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2017 is hereby suspended till the disposal of appeal and till then the applicantaccused is released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15000/- with one surety of the like amount.

¶25

III. Bail before the lower court.

¶26

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶27

rlj/

Baburao Sitaram Gutthe (Maharaj) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Sitaram Gutthe (Maharaj) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Uttamrao Shinde Vs Amol Marotrao Shinde and Another

Jitendra Sanjay Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Asad Shaikh Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin @ Dodhya Premraj Sirsale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gorakshnath S/O Haribhau Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gokul Baliram Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another