Mumbai Aurangabad Court February 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhima S/O Goroba Sontakke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed by the accused appellant herein, challenging the judgment and order dated 30081999 passed by the learned Extra Joint Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1998.2. One Mr. Sudhakar Kishanrao Lohgaonkar, resident of Dapegaon, Taluka Ausa, District Latur lodged the complaint on 24111997 with Killari Police Station stating therein that he is presently residing at village Dapegaon for his service purpose. His elder daughter Saraswati is studying in 10th Standard in Vidya Niketan Middle School at Jawalga (Pomadevi). It was further stated in the complaint that, one Bhima Goroba Sontakke and his parents, one Ramabai Tukaram Kamble, all residents of Dapegaon have kidnapped his daughter Saraswati with intent to perform her marriage with Bhima. His daughter was induced and enticed under the pretext of marriage while taking her out of his legal guardianship. The complainant tried to search for his daughter but he could not trace out her.On 23111997 he came...
Sanjaykumar S/O Kishanlal JaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
This appeal is filed by the accused appellant herein, challenging the judgment and order dated 29112001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Shahada in Other Sessions Case No.16 of 2000 (Old O.S.C.No. 258 of 1994).2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly narrated as under:Sukhlal Ahire, father of the complainant Sudam Ahire, who is now no more, used to sit in front of the shop of the complainant Sudam Ahire and carry on business of boot polishing. The complainant Sudam Ahire belongs to cobbler community which is recognised as a scheduled caste. All the accused belong to Jain community which does not fall either under Scheduled caste or under Scheduled tribe. It is further alleged that on 25051994 at about 1500 hours on the Main Road at village Khapar, the accused NO. 3 Sanjaykumar drove his vehicle through the articles used for the boot polish business belonging to Sukhlal Ahire and thereby caused damage of more than Rs.50/. While said Suklal Ahire wa...
Ashok Bandu Kakade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th June, 1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 285/98 thereby convicting the appellant / accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years.2. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant / accused Ashok is real brother of the victim Prabhakar. Ashok was addicted to liquor and did nothing to earn his livelihood. As he was heavily indebted he sold his house to his brother Prabhakar. There used to be frequent quarrels between Ashok and Prabhakar on this count. On 9.5.1998 at about 3.30 p.m., accused Ashok and his friend accused No.2 Narayan sat with Prabhakar in front of house of one Jaiswal. They beat up Prabhakar and after Prabhakar died, lifted the dead body and placed it in Prabhakar's house. On the next day village Kotval Narayan Dandge gave a report to police station Ajintha whereupon an offence was registered at abo...
Smt. Samina W/O HafizuddIn Siddiqui and ors. Vs. Sk. Saleem S/O Sk. Me ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 18.9.1996, rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 226 of 1992, which has been filed by the original claimants for the enhancement of compensation. The appellants herein are the original claimants i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Hafizuddin; whereas respondent no.1 Shaikh Saleem Sk. Mehboob is the driver of offending vehicle Matador, bearing registration No. MH20/A3638 and respondent no. 2, namely Raosaheb Kadam is the owner of the said Matador. Respondent no.3New India Insurance Company is the insurance company of the said Matador, however, respondent no.4 Ravan is the ownercumdriver of the motor cycle and the deceased was the pillion rider, to which the offending vehicle Matador dashed, and respondent no.5 is the Oriental Insurance Company i.e. the insurance company of the said motor cycle, bearing registratio...
Ankush S/O Laxman Gade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.1999 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 96/1997.2. At the outset, the counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellants are only aggrieved for convicting them for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. They are convicted U/Sec. 235(2) of the Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default of payment of fine the appellants are directed to undergo further S. I. for one week (Seven days).3. The facts are extensively narrated in the impugned judgment from para 2 to 5 and same are not repeated herein.4. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained U/Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, since there is no any corroborative piece of evidence to sustain the conviction. The p...
Manohar S/O Balchandra Bodade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order of the Special Judge at Aurangabad in Special Case No. 01/1993. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant herein was convicted U/Sec. 248(2) of the Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default to suffer further R. I. for three month. He is further convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default to suffer further R. I. for six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under : It is alleged by the prosecution that accused had accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 130/ for doing official act of issuing ration card to the complainant. It is case of prosecution that, accused is public servant ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dwarkabai W/O Keshav Rathod and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
:1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1991, thereby quashing order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in R.C.C. No. 33/1989 dated 01.02.1991.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : The complainant is Murlidhar S/o Mohanlal Randad R/o Nandgaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. He is agriculturist by occupation. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 are resident of village Satona and accused No. 5 is resident of village TidiPimpalgaon, Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The accused No. 1 to 5 are agriculturists by occupation. Accused No. 1 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 and 3 are real brothers.3. It is the prosecution case that, complainant Murlidhar is adopted son of one Rambhabai Mohanlal Randad. Rambhabai was the owner of field Gat No. 48 situated at village Aher Borgaon. She had faith on God Maroti. Hence, she gifted field Gat No. 48 to the temple of Got Maroti ...
Manohar S/O Ravan Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1999 passed by the Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.8 of 1993 thereby convicting the appellant - original accused No.1 u/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, I/D to undergo further R.I. for three months.The appellant - accused No.1 was however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The original accused No.2 was acquitted of all the offences punishable under Sections 12 r/w 7 as also under Section 109 r/w sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The prosecutor case, in brief, is as follows:The complainant has got agricultural land at village Mahaboob Kheda bearing G.No.113 and G.No.107. Both these fields are apart from each other. The complainant intend...
Ashok Sahebrao Borude Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORAL :1. The appellant has questioned the correctness of his conviction for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ with default stipulation of undergoing further RI for one year, in Sessions Case No.22/2008, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2009.2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is as undera) PW9 API Hibare, attached to Sonai Police station, received a telephone message on 21.02.2008 from the Sarpanch of village Vatapur that the appellant has committed murder of his mother Sakharbai. Accordingly, station diary entry No.3 (Exhibit33) was taken and PW9 proceeded to the spot at Vatapur where he noticed that one dead body of a female was lying in a pool of blood. The appellant was present in the house. Statement (Exhibit13) of Sahebrao (PW1) was recorded on the spot, which was treated as FIR, on the basis of which offence at Crime No. 21/...
Ramesh Bhimraj Panhale Vs. Kishor S. Chobe and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORAL :01. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length. Present criminal appeal is filed by the original complainant taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahuri in S.T.C. No. 254/1996 dated 04th September, 1999, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused.02. The facts of the case can be stated as under : The complainant alleged in his complaint that the accused Kishor S. Chobe was carrying construction and contractor business and due to one, Anil Sarvadkar accused was conversant and acquainted with the accused. Thus, accused used to take hand loan amounts from the complainant and repay it. It is alleged that the accused came to the complainant on 08.02.1991 and demanded hand loan of Rs. 60,000/ for the period of five years. So the complainant withdrawn his balance amount from the bank and paid Rs. 60,000/ in cash to the accused.03. It is further case of the compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »