SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Bom) 658

M.L.TAHALIYANI
Chandrabhan S/o. Shyamrao Kale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant:Karan Singh Gour, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Jachak, Addl.P.P.

Judgment

Heard Mr. Karan Singh Gour, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.Sangeeta Jachak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant/ State.

2. ADMIT.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. The applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code for allegedly setting his wife on fire. The trial is about to conclude as the same is now fixed for final arguments. At this stage, the applicant had moved the learned trial Court for production of entire medical record of the deceased when she was admitted at Mayo Hospital (Indira Gandhi Medical College), Nagpur as indoor patient. The applicant had also prayed for production of station diary entry in which the intimation given by D.W. No.1 to the Police Station was recorded. The applications Exhs. 78 and 80 have been rejected by the trial Court.

5. It is submitted by Ms. Jachak that it is too late for the applicant to move the trial Court for production of the documents. Ms. Jachak strongly opposed the prayer on the ground that the applicant was given sufficient opportunity at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had a










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top