Back
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, B.U.DEBADWAR
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Bhaskar Tukaram Kamble – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by prosecutor and defense. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's caution regarding eyewitness testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. legal significance of circumstantial evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. criteria for establishing unlawful assembly. (Para 64 , 67) |
| 6. defense of unexpected attack clarifies intent. (Para 70 , 79) |
| 7. conclusion and sentencing of the accused. (Para 81 , 82 , 86) |
JUDGMENT
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J. - By this appeal under Section 378(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the State seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 13.11.2002 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No.42/1999, vide which, all the ten accused have been acquitted from the charge of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 325, 326, 147, 148 and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT , 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1951 Act").
2. Out of the ten accused, accused No.1 (Bhaskar Tukaram Kamble) and accused No.10 (Antakalabai w/o Gyanoji Kamble) have passed away during the pendency of the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
