State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram and Others

State of Maharashtra vs Sitaram and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Aurangabad Decided Feb 25, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1104949

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1104949
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad High Court
Judge: K.U. Chandiwal
Decided On: Feb 25, 2013
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2001
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Sitaram and Others

Excerpt

oral judgment: heard. on 4th october, 2000, learned 2nd joint jmfc, hingoli in rcc no.84/1994, acquitted respondent nos.1 to 3 for offence under sections 435 and 429 r/w 34 of ipc. the state feels aggrieved by the same. 2. the appeal was admitted on 25th june, 2003 and action under section 390 cr.p.c. was directed. 3. perusal of the judgment and record illustrate, there was long-drawn litigation between the accused and the complainant and his associates. though pw no.1 was claiming to be an eyewitness, however, the learned judge observed, his evidence to be an interested witness and doubtful. the learned judge did not rely to the evidence of pw no.3 sitaram. it was pointed out and not refuted that pw no.1, pw no.2 and pw no.3 were convicted in criminal case filed by the accused. consequently, wrath and vengeance in the mind of the complainant saw its resultant in filing the prosecution referred above. analysis of the evidence carried by the learned judge was one of the possible view, which he has rightly taken. there is no merit. criminal appeal is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

Heard. On 4th October, 2000, learned 2nd Joint JMFC, Hingoli in RCC No.84/1994, acquitted Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for offence under Sections 435 and 429 r/w 34 of IPC. The State feels aggrieved by the same.

2. The appeal was admitted on 25th June, 2003 and action under Section 390 Cr.P.C. was directed.

3. Perusal of the judgment and record illustrate, there was long-drawn litigation between the accused and the complainant and his associates. Though PW No.1 was claiming to be an eyewitness, however, the learned Judge observed, his evidence to be an interested witness and doubtful. The learned Judge did not rely to the evidence of PW No.3 Sitaram. It was pointed out and not refuted that PW No.1, PW No.2 and PW No.3 were convicted in criminal case filed by the accused. Consequently, wrath and vengeance in the mind of the complainant saw its resultant in filing the prosecution referred above. Analysis of the evidence carried by the learned Judge was one of the possible view, which he has rightly taken. There is no merit. Criminal Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Aurangabad · 2013 Same Parties State of Maharashtra vs Sitaram and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K.U. Chandiwal