Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-2014
Oral Judgment Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1 The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.490 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default RI for 3 months. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) The deceased Govind alias Rajesh Thapa was the husband of Nirmala. He along with his wife and two children were residing at Indrayani Darshan Colony, Dehu Road, District-Pune. Deceased Govind was serving as wireman in Military Engineering Services, Dehu Road. Appellant was the brother of deceased Govind. Appellant was jobless and was addicted to liquor. (ii) The incident had taken place on 3.4.2008. Deceased Govind came home at about 10 p.m. After completing dinner, Govind went out of his house as usu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The Appellant/Original Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6, who stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to each pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year, by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, by Judgment dated 5.10.2007, in Sessions Case No.446 of 2004 and Sessions Case No.106 of 2005, by this Appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus :- PW-6 ASI Kondiba Malhari Thengil, who, on 3.4.2004, was attached to the Mulund Police Station and was present in the Hindusthan Police Chowky, was informed by two persons about assault on Yogesh Rathod. PW-6 ASI Thengil, therefore, accordingly went with those two persons in an auto-rickshaw to the scene of the incident which was in front of Gidwani High Scho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-2014
INDEX AND STRUCTURE I. PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................3 Summary of Final Conclusion....................................................... 4 II. BACKGROUND and HISTORY OF THE PETITION.......................5 A. The Original Petition.....................................................................5 B. Admission of the Petition, and appeals........................................... 9 C. The Supreme Court Judgment of 2008......................................... 11 D. The amendment of 2008 ..............................................................13 III. QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION ........................................15 IV. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS and FINDINGS ............................................16 A. Maintainability and Sufficiency of Pleadings...................................16 B. Limitation...................................................................................23 C. Admissions and Indebtedness;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-2014
Oral Judgment: ( P.V. Hardas, J.) Criminal Appeal 1330 of 2012 has been filed by original accused No.3, while Criminal Appeal 1364 of 2012 has been filed by original accused Nos.4 and 6 who take exception to the judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon, District Nashik dated 5 April 2010 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2001 convicting and sentencing the Appellants for offence punishable under Section 363 read with 34, 396 and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay file of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months and imprisonment for life respectively. Since both these Appeals arise from the same judgment, these Appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. At the outset it may be stated that original accused No.5 had filed Criminal Appeal 1212 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 3 May 2012. It appears that the present Appellants had not filed any appeal que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The petitioners have filed Petition No.403 of 2007 challenging the construction of a hotel by Respondent No.6 upon permission granted by respondent No.2 under orders dated 31st July, 1995, 8th October, 1998, 1st September, 2001 and 17th September, 2005 in respect of a specific plan dated 31st May, 1995 and the renewals thereto. Upon the prayer of quashing of these orders the petitioners require directions against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the original nature of the land upon which they have constructed the hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). 2. Upon having seen that the hotel premises has been constructed in the No Development Zone (NDZ) of the CRZ without the approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF), which is mandatorily required, the petitioners have filed Petition No. 659 of 2010 for quashing the NOCs of respondent No.4 dated 16th September, 2008, 5th July, 2010 and 6th July, 2010 and constru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-31-2014
The appeal is filed against Judgment and order of Special Case No.66/2010, which was pending in the Children's Court created for the State for Goa at Panaji-Goa. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be said as follows: The offence is committed against a girl child who was aged about 4 years at the relevant time. The accused was aged about 29 years and he was a married man. The father of the girl child was working as a security guard in campus known as œTropical Estate Private Ltd? at Morod, Sangolda and this complex is situated within the local jurisdiction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The Appellant / original accused No.1 who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros, by judgment dated 17 December 2007, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2007, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus: P.W. 11 Police Constable Nandkumar Gosavi who on 1 April 2007 was attached to Malwan Police Station, recorded the report of P.W. 1 Chandrakala at Exhibit 26. On the basis of the said report, he registered an offence against the accused and forwarded the papers to Police Station, Achara for further investigation. 3. P.W. 12 P.S.I. Krishna Kalantre, who was attached to Police Station, Achara, had received the papers from P.W. 11 P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Tag this Judgment!