BABU GANGARAM CHANDRAGIRI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-77
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Decided on March 23,2017

Babu Gangaram Chandragiri Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M.BADAR,J. - (1.) In this appeal of the year 2015, Criminal Application bearing No.986 of 2015 came to be listed for hearing. Ms.Yogita Deshmukh the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/accused extensively argued the application for bail with reference to entire Record and Proceedings and requested this Court to dispose of the appeal itself in view of her arguments which covered merits of prosecution case. Hence, the appeal is being decided finally after hearing both the parties at sufficient length of time.
(2.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging his conviction for offence punishable under Sections 307, 385, 386, 504, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (For short, "the IPC") and Section 37(i)(a) read with Section 135 of the then Bombay Police Act (Now Maharashtra Police Act). The appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years on each count for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 386 of the IPC, apart of direction regarding payment of fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months on each count. For the offence punishable under Section 385 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the one punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. For offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. For the offence punishable under Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All substantive sentence were directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court.
(3.) I have heard Ms. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/accused. She argued that papers of medical treatment of injured P.W.No.2 Shabbir at Exh.32 proved by P.W.No.5 Dr. Mane shows that blood group of Shabbir was "B+ve", whereas C.A. report shows that the group of blood is "B" and, therefore, the entire prosecution case is suffering from doubt. It is further argued that P.W.No.1 Ramchandra had omitted to state the snatching of the gold chain as well as giving blow by knife on P.W.No.2 Shabbir. It is further argued that P.W.No.1 Ramchandra is friend of P.W.No.2 Shabbir. He deposed that he was slapped by the accused in presence of P.W.No.2 Shabbir, but P.W.No.2 Shabbir does not mention slapping by the applicant/accused to P.W.No.1 Ramchandra. The evidence of P.W.No.2 Shabbir shows that description of the knife was not recorded by police in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short, "the Code"). The learned Advocate further argued that bloodstained clothes of P.W.No.2 Gaikwad Shabbir were not seized by police. It is further argued that evidence of P.W.No.3 Shekhar Nirmal shows that the motorcycle on which the injured was carried to hospital was stained with blood. But that motorcycle was not seized. The statement of Laman was not recorded by police. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant/accused, as per version of P.W.No.9 Dr. Mane, injury suffered by P.W.No.2 Shabbir is possible by several other reasons. The evidence of P.W.No.7 Sushant Varale, Investigating Officer shows that the injured was taken to J.J. Hospital and not to Saint George Hospital and in that sense other witnesses came to be contradicted. The evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.No.8 Shyam Sonawane shows that weapon like knife seized in the crime in question is easily available in the market and, therefore, seized weapon cannot be attributed to the appellant/accused. The evidence of P.W.No.6 Hiranna Valmiki-panch witness shows that shirt came to be seized from the hospital on 30/06/2011, which is after 11 days from the date of the incident and, therefore, this evidence is also not reliable. With this, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the appellant/accused and, therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.