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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prasanna B.Varale, Surendra P.Tavade, JJ.
Munna @ Digvijay Sambhaji Nimhan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Interim Application No.939 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1176 of 2019
Decided On : 13-05-2021

Advocates appeared:
Amit Desai, Advocate, Gopalkrishna Shenoy, Advocate, Vipin Bidkar, Advocate, Ujwala Pawar, Advocate, Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate, M. M. Deshmukh, Advocate

The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the charges, evidence, and punishment in bail applications, as well as the need to carefully evaluate inconsistencies in the evidence and the role of the eye-witnesses.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Law - IPC - Arms Act - Bombay Police Act - [Applicants/Appellants] - [Offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 307, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC, 3(25) of the Arms Act and 37(1)/135 of Bombay Police Act] - [Sections 302, 452, 34 of IPC, 3(25) of the Arms Act, 37(1)/135 of Bombay Police Act] - The court discussed the evidence, inconsistencies in the oral and medical evidence, and the role of the eye-witnesses in the alleged crime. The court also considered the legal principles related to bail and the nature of the charges, evidence, and punishment. The court found that Applicant No.1 was entitled to be released on bail, while the application of Applicant Nos.2 and 3 was rejected.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased and his friends were attacked by the applicants near a bungalow, resulting in the death of the deceased. The applicants were convicted for various offences and sought bail and suspension of sentence. The prosecution presented evidence of the attack, while the defense raised inconsistencies in the evidence and procedural irregularities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Applicant No.1 was entitled to be released on bail, while the application of Applicant Nos.2 and 3 was rejected. The court considered the evidence, inconsistencies, and legal principles related to bail in reaching its decision.

Issues: The court analyzed the evidence, inconsistencies, and procedural irregularities raised by the defense. The court also considered the nature of the charges, evidence, and punishment in determining the bail applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the charges, evidence, and punishment, as well as the legal principles related to bail. The court also considered the inconsistencies in the evidence and the role of the eye-witnesses in the alleged crime.

Final Decision: Applicant No.1 was ordered to be released on bail, while the application of Applicant Nos.2 and 3 was rejected.

JUDGMENT

SURENDRA P.TAVADE, J. - The applicants/appellants have fled this application for bail and suspension of sentence imposed upon the applicants/appellants by the judgment and order dated 19.07.2019 in Sessions Case No.652 of 2013. They were prosecuted by Chaturshrugi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 307, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC, 3(25) of the Arms Act and 37(1)/135 of Bombay Police Act. They have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15, 000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to suffer further RI for three months each and for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall suffer further RI for three months each. They have challenged the said sentence by fling Criminal Appeal No.1176 of 2019, wherein the present application is preferred.

2. The facts of the present application can be summarised as under:-

On 12.04.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. deceased/Pratik Nimhan along with his friends including the informant/Kirti Ramdas Kale (PW-2), Deva Mane (PW-4) were chit-chatting near the Tennis Court in the vicinity of the bungalow of the informant/Kirti Ramdas Kale. When the deceased/Pratik decided to leave the said place, the informant and other persons started proceeding by chit-chatting in order to drop the deceased/Pratik near his vehicle. When they were near main road, some persons who were riding on 4 to 5 motorbikes including the applicants reached near them. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were holding revolvers in their hands and others were holding wooden handles and bamboo-sticks. On seeing the informant/Kirti and deceased/Pratik, Applicant Nos.2 and 3 abused and fired in the air. The other persons started hitting them by means of wooden handle. Due to the sudden attack, the informant and his friends including the deceased were frightened and started running helter-skelter. The informant and deceased turned back and started running towards the bungalow of informant, but they were chased by the motorcyclists. The informant hide himself in a dark at tennis court near his bungalow while the deceased entered in his bungalow. The applicants/appellants followed deceased by entering into the bungalow. The deceased/Pratik rushed into the bed-room of the father of informant which was situated at first floor of the bungalow. The applicants/appellants followed him and fired the bullets from their revolvers on the deceased, because of which he collapsed in pool of blood. Thereafter, the applicants/appellants threw their revolvers at the crime scene and left the bungalow when they were heard saying that they had eliminated the deceased and went away. The informant/Kirti reached to his bungalow and found his parents and brother were present on the spot. They found deceased lying in a pool of blood in the bedroom and two revolvers were lying beside the deceased.

3. The incident was reported to Chaturshungi Police Station, Pune. Accordingly, the police rushed to the spot. The deceased/Pratik was taken to Sancheti Hospital where he was declared dead. Hence, his dead-body was referred for postmortem. The Investigating Officer recorded FIR of the informant/Kirti. The Investigating Officer prepared spot-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of the panch witnesses and seized the articles lying on the spot. The Investigating Officer also prepared inquest panchnama and collected postmortem report of the deceased/Pratik. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The seized weapons and other articles were sent to Chemical Analysis and ballistic experts for analysis. The applicants/appellants alongwith other accused- persons were arrested. Applicant No.1 came to be released

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 Back to top