Bombay High Court
Satish Vasant Mantre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 April, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.584 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.111 OF 2021
Satish s/o Vasant Mantre = APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT/S
-----
Mr.UL Telgaonkar,Advocate for Applicant/s;
Mr.NT Bhagat,APP for Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 27th April, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate and learned APP
appearing for respective parties.
2. In this Criminal Application, the
applicant prays for suspension of substantive
sentences and releasing him on bail during pendency
and final hearing of the Criminal Appeal.
3. The applicant is the original accused in
Special POCSO Case No.08/2017, who has been
convicted and sentenced by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, vide judgment and order
dated 15.2.2021, thus, -
a) For the offence under Section 307 of
IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten
years and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in
default, S.I. for three months.
b) Out of the fine amount, an amount of
Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid to the
victim as compensation.
4. The prosecution story is that on
23.1.2017, one Prabhakar Lahudas Karad (PW) lodged
report to the Parli City police station, where in
alleged that on that day he had been to morning
walk. At about 7.30 am to 8.00 am, he received a
phone call of his relative Yashwant Madhavrao
Karad, who informed him that his cousin sister
Siddhi was inflicted blow of knife by someone and
is admitted in the hospital of Dr.Kale. He
immediately went by his vehicle to the hospital of
Dr.Kale and his relative Vasant Gitte who was
present in the hospital told him that, one lane-ate
Satish Mantre inflicted knife blows on Siddhi with
intention tokill her and in the said assault,
Siddhi had sustained grievous injuries. The doctor
treating Siddhi told him that she was having
grievous injury on her stomach. On the same day he
visited Parli City police station and lodged the
FIR, based on which the alleged offence has been
registered.
5. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of
the applicant that the applicant has deposited the
fine amount and he was on bail during the course of
the trial and has not misused the liberty. He is
earning member in his family. The applicant is
insane and he requires proper care and medication.
The Trial Court ignored the material contradictions
and omissions in the evidence. The delay caused in
lodging the FIR is not explained by the
prosecution. The FIR is based on hearsay
information. Non-examination of eye witnesses,
though available, is serious fatal to the
prosecution. The learned Trial Judge has misread
and misconstrued the evidence brought on record and
erred in convicting and sentencing the applicant.
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove charge
levelled against the applicant/s by a cogent and
reliable evidence on record and the conviction is
not sustainable in law and facts of the case. The
learned Advocate further submits that the appeal
involves other legal points/issues, which the
applicant/appellant wants to agitate and address
them at the time of final hearing of the appeal and
the applicant has every hope of success in the
appeal. Consequently, the applicant prays for
releasing him on bail by suspending the substantive
sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge on
such terms and conditions as this Court may deem
fit and proper.
6. Per contra, learned APP vociferously
resisted the application and supported the reasons
assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while
convicting and imposing the sentences against the
applicant. The accused in this case has admitted
the fact of assault on the victim, a school going
girl, but he has taken the defence of insanity.
Though it was the defence of the accused that at
the time of the alleged crime he was suffering from
mental disorder, viz. Schizophrenia, however, as
regards the origin of the mental disorder of the
accused, no documentary evidence is placed on
record. The conduct of the accused, at the time
of incident and after the incident, clearly
indicates his intention to assault the victim. If
the accused was in schizophrenic attack, he would
not have taken a knife with him and would not have
travelled on his Luna. The conduct of the accused
shows that he was not suffering from unsoundness of
mind at the time of the alleged incident and only
to escape from his criminal acts, false defence is
taken by him, which is not reliable and believable.
The prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned APP submitted that
the case is based on the direct as well as other
evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has properly
scanned scrutinized the evidence brought on record.
It is, therefore, submitted that the application
being sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and it
be dismissed accordingly.
7. In the present case, though the sentence,
that has been awarded to the applicant for the
offence under Section 307 of IPC, to undergo ten
years' R.I., which may be, in view of the decisions
in the case of Kiran Kumar Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2001(9) SCC 211] and Bhagwan Rama Shinde
Gosai Vs. State of Gujrath - (1999) 4 SCC 421, is a
short term sentence; yet it can be said that in
both the aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has not laid down that it should be a rule to
suspend the sentence and release the
applicant/accused on bail when the appeal is
admitted, though it has been observed, - "when a
person is convicted and sentenced to a short term
imprisonment, normal rule is that when his appeal
is pending, the sentence should be suspended and
rejection is only by way of exception and be put
forward for such rejection." That means, rejection
is permissible subject to the fact that reasons
should be assigned therefor.
8. In this case, the present applicant was,
in fact, prosecuted for the offence under Section
307, 326, 354-A, 341, 504 of IPC and Sections 8 and
12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution story has
already been stated, therefore, it is not repeated.
The victim girl was going on to school along with
her friend and without any reason, the present
applicant-appellant had come running, pushed the
victim on ground and after abusing, he had took out
the knife and assaulted the girl on the left side
of her navel; left wrist, thumb of right hand and
on palm of right hand. Further, two blows were
given on left side of the chest and upper lip below
the nose. Perusal of the cross of the girl would
show that except denials, there is nothing. There
is no suggestion that the accused had ever talked
to the girl. Same is the case of the testimony of
her friend, who was the eye-witness. Even at this
prima facie stage, it can be said that there is
nothing in the cross-examination of these two
witnesses, which could express any kind of doubt as
regards their veracity. Further, there is
supporting medical evidence.
9. It appears that the present applicant had
tried to raise defence of insanity. He has led the
evidence and according to learned Advocate
representing the applicant-accused, that evidence
has not been appreciated properly by the learned
Trial Judge. The documents, which he had produced
before the learned Trial Judge, have been produced
on record here also. The evidence of the defence
witnesses, who are the medical practitioners, would
show that the applicant had visited the concerned
medical practitioner lastly on 6.3.2016 and at that
time, he had made the complaint of forgetfulness.
It appears that the applicant intended to project
that the illness, which he is suffering, is
schizophrenia. For schizophrenia, it should be
proved that at the relevant time, i.e. when the
blows were inflicted or the alleged offence was
committed, he was under that schizophrenic attack.
The defence witnesses have also stated that he
found the applicant on self medicating basis since
last six months. It also appears that the medical
practitioner had asked him to take regular follow
up treatment, but, the applicant had not visited
him. Therefore, with this kind of evidence, it
appears that the learned Trial Judge had not
believed in the said evidence. Unless there would
have been concrete evidence, this Court cannot
suspend the sentence, as of right, when the
evidence, that is produced by the prosecution
appears to be more strong and convincing. Taking
into consideration the age of the applicant-
appellant and other aspects, at the most, the
appeal can be expedited and that can be taken up
for hearing. Therefore, the Criminal Application
stands rejected.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
