Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sunil Devidas Bhavsar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Devidas Bhavsar vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Aug 27, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1103977

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Application No.136 of 2012
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Devidas Bhavsar

Respondent

State of Maharashtra and Others

Excerpt

p.c. heard. 2. this is an application filed by the first informant - sunil devidas bhavsar. his wife had committed suicide. according to the f.i.r. was registered, alleging that the accused persons has abated the suicide. charge-sheet was filed. 3. at the end of trial, the learned sessions court acquitted the accused. the first informant has filed this appeal against acquittal. 4. learned advocate for the applicant has read out to the court the copy of suicide note. it is at page 195. this court has also perused the same. 5. the suicide note expresses grievance against accused persons to the effect that :- she had sold the house in return of debt, to the accused. the accused were demanding interest. she had landed in a situation of penuery and extreme frustration due to the pestering by accused. she believed that during her lifetime the justice would not be done. 6. any other independent evidence in support of the charge was not led. 7. in the result, the sessions judge had recorded a finding holding that not only the investigation was not proper, but with whatever material that had come on record the charge of offence under section 306 was not proved against the accused persons. 8. applicant and the app were not able to demonstrate apart from suicide note, any evidence to prove any act of abatement of suicide on the part of accused. 9. seen from any angle, the suicide note is not a trustworthy evidence and proof of fact of abatement. moreover, the suicide note itself is not proved. 10. it is also not shown that eye witnesses were named but were not called or were wrongly declined to be summoned by the sessions court. 11. in the result, it is evident that the application has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, and is dismissed.

Full Judgment

P.C.

Heard.

2. This is an application filed by the first informant - Sunil Devidas Bhavsar. His wife had committed suicide. According to the F.I.R. was registered, alleging that the accused persons has abated the suicide. Charge-sheet was filed.

3. At the end of trial, the learned Sessions Court acquitted the accused. The first informant has filed this appeal against acquittal.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has read out to the court the copy of suicide note. It is at page 195. This court has also perused the same.

5. The suicide note expresses grievance against accused persons to the effect that :-

She had sold the house in return of debt, to the Accused. The accused were demanding interest. She had landed in a situation of penuery and extreme frustration due to the pestering by accused. She believed that during her lifetime the justice would not be done.

6. Any other independent evidence in support of the charge was not led.

7. In the result, the Sessions Judge had recorded a finding holding that not only the investigation was not proper, but with whatever material that had come on record the charge of offence under section 306 was not proved against the accused persons.

8. Applicant and the APP were not able to demonstrate apart from suicide note, any evidence to prove any act of abatement of suicide on the part of accused.

9. Seen from any angle, the suicide note is not a trustworthy evidence and proof of fact of abatement. Moreover, the suicide note itself is not proved.

10. It is also not shown that eye witnesses were named but were not called or were wrongly declined to be summoned by the Sessions Court.

11. In the result, it is evident that the application has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, and is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial