Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Subhedar Mugutrao Bhosale – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]
The aforesaid Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 9th December 2003 passed by a Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandala, District Satara in Regular Criminal Case No.56 of 1997, thereby the Respondent Nos.1 to 6/Original Accused Nos.1 to 6 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 37 (1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. (Hereinafter, the Respondents are being referred to by their original status before the trial Court).
2) Record indicates that Appeal was admitted only against the Accused Nos.1 to 3, vide Order dated 21st July, 2004. Thereafter, the procedure under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. was followed.
3) Heard Ms. Tendulkar, learned A.P.P. for the Appellant- State and Mr. Pasbola, learned appointed Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.
4) Facts giving rise to this Appeal are as under:-
The prosecution story is that, On 18th July 1997, at about 5.30 p.m., PW1-Bhanudas Sopan Bhosale- the first informant, his wife-Sujata, brot
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of credible eyewitness and injured witness accounts, the application of Section 149 IPC for vicarious liability, and the relevance....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of consistent testimonies, and the need for indepe....
Failure on the part of the prosecution to explain or disclose the genesis of the offence is also an additional factor which renders the prosecution story a bit doubtful.
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
