Bombay High Court
Pravin Tukaram Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2022
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. R. Borkar
ia-2996-21 in apeal-99-19.apeal(st) .odt
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHERLA Date:
2022.03.03
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2996 OF 2021
13:12:21
+0500
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2019
Pravin Tukaram Shinde ] ... Applicant/Org.
Accused
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ]
(at the instance of Lonand ]
Police Station ]... Respondent.
----------------
Ms Rebecca Gonsalvez i/b Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the
Applicant/Appellant
Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent - State.
----------------
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01.03.2022.
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.03.2022.
ORDER (PER : N.R. BORKAR,J.)
1] The applicant has fled the appeal against the judgment
and order dated 06.05.2017 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2016. By
the said judgment, the trial court convicted the applicant, who
was the accused before the trial court, for the ofences
punishable under sections 302 and 365 of the Indian Penal
Dinesh Sherla 1/5
ia-2996-21 in apeal-99-19.apeal(st) .odt
Code, 1860 ( for short "IPC") and sentenced as follows:
(a) Imprisonment for life for the ofence punishable
under section 302 of IPC; and
(b) Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the
ofence punishable under section 365 of the IPC;
2] By this application under section 389 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), suspension of
substantive sentence during the pendency of appeal and
consequently, release of the applicant on bail is sought.
3] We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned APP for the respondent/State.
4] According to PW-1 Rohini Madane and PW-4 Sindhu
Bhandalkar on 10.03.2016, at about 10.30 p.m., while they
were at their home, heard the dogs barking near the temple
of Vetalbaba. They went in that direction and saw that the
accused was assaulting the deceased. They asked the
accused as to why he was assaulting the deceased. The
accused replied to them that the deceased had borrowed
Rs.1000/- from him and refusing to return the same. They told
the accused that they would give him the money on the next
Dinesh Sherla 2/5
ia-2996-21 in apeal-99-19.apeal(st) .odt
day and requested the accused to stop assaulting the
deceased. According to PW-1 and PW-4, the accused was
assaulting the deceased by means of iron fghter, due to
which the deceased had sustained bleeding injuries on his
face, chest and head.
5] According to PW-1 and PW-4, they came back to call
other villagers. When they again went back to the spot with
other villagers, neither the deceased nor the accused were
there. They took search of the deceased. However, he was
not found. On the next day in the morning, the deceased was
found in injured condition in Salpe Ghat. The deceased was
initially taken to Civil Hospital, Satara and from there shifted
to Sasoon Hospital at Pune, where he succumbed to the
injuries on 13.03.2016.
6] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there
is a delay in lodging the frst information report. It is
submitted that no one saw the applicant and the deceased
together going to Salpe Ghat on 10.03.2016 after the alleged
quarrel at 10.30 p.m. It is submitted that there is no evidence
Dinesh Sherla 3/5
ia-2996-21 in apeal-99-19.apeal(st) .odt
as to when and by whom the deceased was found on
11.03.2016 at Salpe Ghat. It is submitted that the prosecution
has not examined the Doctor, who treated the deceased. It is
submitted that the deceased died three days after the alleged
incident of 10.03.2016 and therefore, the possibility of some
intervening cause having caused the death of the deceased
cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that considering the
above facts and circumstances, at the most, the applicant can
be said to have committed the ofence punishable under
section 304 (II) of the IPC. It is submitted that the substantive
sentence imposed by the trial court thus needs to be
suspended and the applicant needs to be released on bail.
7] The learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his
submissions, has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Harish Kumar vs. State (Delhi Administration)1.
8] On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/
State submits that PW-1 and PW-4 are the eye-witnesses to
the incident which took place on 10.03.2016 at about 10.30
p.m. near Vetalbaba temple. It is submitted that thereafter
1 AIR 1993 SC 973
Dinesh Sherla 4/5
ia-2996-21 in apeal-99-19.apeal(st) .odt
the deceased was found in injured condition in Salpe Ghat. It
is submitted that in the intervening night of 10.03.2016 and
11.03.2016, the accused was found standing near Salpe Ghat
by PW-6 Vishal Kolpe. It is submitted that considering the
overall facts and circumstances, the application needs to be
rejected.
9] We have perused the evidence on record and more
particularly, the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6. According
to PW-1 and PW-4, on 10.03.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the
accused assaulted the deceased by iron fghter near
Vetalbaba temple due to which the deceased had sustained
bleeding injuries on his face, chest and head. On the next day
in the morning, the deceased was found lying in injured
condition in Salphe Ghat. According to PW-6, he had seen the
accused near Salphe Ghat, in the intervening night of
10.03.2016 and 11.03.2016. The deceased died due to head
injury. Considering the evidence on record, we are not inclined
to suspend the sentence and to release the applicant on bail.
Hence, the Interim Application is rejected.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
Dinesh Sherla 5/5
