Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ORAL :1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1999 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 82/1998.2. It is the prosecution case that :P.W. 1 Salimoddin resident of Nashirabad was on cross terms with the accused Salimoddin and his father accused No. 2 Gulam. On 08th November, 1997 a quarrel took place between his brother Hasinoddin and daughter of accused Gulam. On 09.11.1997 Salimoddin had been to Jalgaon for some work. At about 11.30 a.m. when he was proceeding by road and reached near Nashirabad rickshaw stop the accused persons assaulted him with knives causing injuries on chest, back, thigh, right hand and both knees. They were saying that they would kill him. He raised shouts for help, on which P.W. 4 Iqbalkhan and P.W. 6 Nasirali came there and rescued him. He was sent to Civil Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned Advocates and perused the record. 2. In all ten accused were tried for offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 with Sections 149 and 302 with 149, 307 with 149 of IPC. All accused have been convicted towards all the offenses charged and have been sentenced. 3. In these appeals, the accused have challenged the judgment and order of conviction. 4. Cause of death is "Hypo-volumic shock due to compound fracture of upper end of both Tibia and fibula with lower end of humurus leading to cardio-respiration arrest" 5. The prosecution has relied upon eye witnesses, namely, PW No.3 Kuldip Ragde, PW No.5 Dhananjay Hande, PW No.6 Balaji Pandhare, PW No. 10 Bharat Ragade, while other witnesses pertain to other matters pertaining to the investigation. 6. PW No.1 Dr. Ravindra Mali is the medical witness who has conducted the post mortem examination. Other medical witness is PW No.2 Dr.Sanjay Walke and PW No.15 Dr. Vilas Deshmukh. The medical certificates, at Exhs.75, 76...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Criminal Appeal Nos.208/2010, 170/2010 and 192/2010 have been filed by accused who were tried before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.22/2009 and were convicted on 21.4.2010. Two of the accused persons involved (here respondents in Criminal Appeal No.235/2012) in the same incident were absconding and after they were apprehended, they were tried vide Sessions Case No.76/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed and were acquitted. Thus, the State filed Criminal Appeal No.235/2012. Appellant/ accused Shriram, who had jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 208/2010, was granted leave to file separate appeal and thus, he filed Criminal Appeal No.170/2012. By this common judgment, we are disposing of all these appeals. 2. Unless mentioned otherwise, we will refer to witnesses and documents from Sessions Case No.22/2009. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under: Deceased Sandipan Namdeo Jadhav was residing with his brothers Ram and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. Both of them were charged along with accused no.2 Govardhanlal Shriramdas Sachdeva, the father of original accused no.1 Bhupendra. Accused no.2 Govardhanlal came to be acquitted by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief). Accused No.1 Bhupendra and accused No. 3 Rupindar were convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Accused No.1 Bhupendra was convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused No.3 Rupindar came to be convicted under Section 114 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentences of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months were also passed under Sections 302, 498A and 114 of IPC. Accused No.1 Bhupen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The Appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants-accused (hereafter referred as accused- with numbers as given to them in the trial Court and mentioned above in the cause title) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.76 of 1999, on 18th January 2000. The 13 accused were convicted for offence under Section 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). Additionally accused No.13 was convicted for offence under Section 368 of I.P.C. However, trial Court passed order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 13 of offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 365 of I.P.C. the sentence imposed was of simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 368 of I.P.C., sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 30th August, 1995, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (i) That, the complainant Vandanabai w/o Satyanarayan Thakur is the resident of Gadipura, Renuka Mandir, Nanded. Vandana has two sons namely Dhanraj and Dhanprakash. She has one daughter by name Rajkumari. Vandana's husband Satyanarayan is electrician by profession and does the work of repair of fans and electric motors. At the time of incident, Vandana was residing with her husband and children in the house in Gadipura area. Satyanarayan has two married sisters namely Vimalbai and Karunabai. (ii) Accused and complainant Vandana at the relevant time were residing in the same Wada situated at Gadipura. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 25.09.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1992, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: The case of the prosecution is that the deceased [a deserted married woman] was residing with her parents at Fekari. The parents of deceased agreed to purchase a house and earnest amount Rs.2,000/- was paid. But sale deed was not executed. Accused are related to both purchaser and seller. A serious dispute arose in between deceased and her family members and accused. Due to this, accused on 14.08.1991 around 2.30 set the deceased on fire resulting in her death. She was taken to Hospital by her grandmother and other relatives. She died on 15.08.1991. Two dying declarations were recorded; one by Police Head Constable and other by E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna on 28th November, 1996, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that, deceased Madhavi daughter of PW 3 Madhukar Lambe was married to accused No.1 before three years of her death. Accused made demand of Rs. 3,000/- for purchase of T.V. and suspected her character. In furtherance of common intention, all the accused committed murder of Madhavi and thereafter set her dead body on fire. 3. The prosecution examined Ramrao Kulkarni as PW-1, who is panch to inquest pachanama, Sitaram Lambe was examined as PW-2, grand father of deceased, Madhukar Lambe was examined as PW-3, father of the deceased, Dr. Bhadre was examined as PW-4 and Arun Bharaskar was examined as PW-5. Inquest panchanama is at Exhibit-10, Spot panchan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th May, 1995, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1994, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for the sake of brevity). 2. Facts projected from police report leading to the prosecution of the respondent/accused can be summarized thus:- [a] Respondent/accused Nina Tadas, is cousin uncle of Gajanan Pandurang Tadas (since deceased). According to prosecution case, there was a dispute between the family of Gajanan Tadas and respondent/accused Nina, over open land situated nearby their house leading to the filing of civil suit by Pandurang Shankar Tadas (PW-2) father of deceased Gajanan. [b] The incident in question allegedly happened on 5.9.1994 at village Harankhkeda, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, where the parties were residing. It was day of 'POLA' festi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 02.04.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.172/1995, thereby acquitting the Respondent Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P. Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: 2. On 4th March, 1995 at about 9.20 hours one Santosh Shantilal lodged the Khabarto the Takali Dhokeshwar Police Outpost, contending therein that, Balasaheb Kashinath Shendage [accused] is the tenant of the complainant. While he was asleep, the accused came from the back door of his house, and told him that come to see what has happened in his rented premises. Thereafter, informant visited the house of the accused and found that, wife of the accused namely Urmila was lying in dead condition due to burning. There was a stove near her. He visited the Police Outpost Takali Dhokeshwar and lodged the khabar. On the basis of said Khaba...
Tag this Judgment!