State Of Maharashtra vs Balasaheb Bhimsen Patil

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 196

M. M. SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Balasaheb Bhimsen Patil – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.D. Naik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shantanu Phanse, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR

ORDER :

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. These are appeals against the acquittal rendered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court rendered a conviction against the present respondents, which has been overturned by the High Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant State submitted that the High Court has not considered the evidence of the material witnesses, especially, the eye witnesses. PWs-4 to 8, being the eye-witnesses, have clearly deposed against the respondent(s). The recovery has also been proved. The Trial Court took this into consideration. The conviction by the Trial Court, based on the aforementioned relevant material, has been wrongly overturned by the High Court.

4. We are not inclined to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment of the High Court. The High Court took into consideration all the evidences placed before it and came to the right conclusion, that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed, and there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the testimony of the eyewitn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document