Bombay High Court
Appasaheb @ Kashinath Pandurang ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 November, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 2-i-IA-3634-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3634 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1079 OF 2022
Appasaheb @ Kashinath Pandurang
Shingade ..... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
-----
Mr. Viresh V. Purwant, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2022
P.C. :
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
1. This is an application for bail pending hearing
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2022.11.16
17:35:33
+0530
and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1079/2022.
2. The applicant was convicted and sentenced by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur vide his judgment
and order dated 29.9.2022 passed in Sessions Case
No.99/2017. The applicant was convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC and
1 of 6
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 2-i-IA-3634-22.odt
was sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer RI for one month. He was
also convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC, but, no separate sentence was
awarded in view of the sentence imposed under Section 304
Part II of IPC. The other accused i.e. wife of the applicant
was acquitted from all the charges.
3. Heard Shri Viresh Purwant, learned counsel for
the applicant and Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the
State.
4. The prosecution case is that on 9.6.2016 it was a
weekly market day. There was a land dispute between the
appellant and one Basappa Pandhare. A quarrel took place
between them. The deceased in this case Kalappa Koli was
present there and in the incident the appellant assaulted
Basappa with a stick lying nearby and he also beat Kalappa
Koli. Kalappa was shifted to Civil Hospital, Mandrup. He
died on 24.6.2016. In between, on 16.6.2016, son of the
2 of 6
:3: 2-i-IA-3634-22.odt
deceased Kalappa lodged FIR against the applicant and his
wife. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 324 of IPC
and subsequent to the death of the deceased Section 304
Part II of IPC was added. The investigation was carried out.
The appellant faced the trial. He was convicted and
sentenced, as mentioned earlier.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my
attention to the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e. PW-4
Bhimashankar Chitapure and PW-7 Sanjaykumar Alagi. PW-4
had turned hostile. However, the prosecution case is
supported by the evidence of PW-7. But his evidence also
shows that the quarrel was between the applicant and
Basappa and in that quarrel the applicant had beaten
Kalappa who was present there with Basappa.
6. The evidence of PW-10 Dr. Himanshu Bodare
who had treated Kalappa on 10.6.2016 mentions that there
was laceration of 4 cm x 0.5 cm on left eye and on forehead.
He has specifically deposed that the injury was simple in
3 of 6
:4: 2-i-IA-3634-22.odt
nature. It appears that there was internal damage and he
died.
7. The evidence of PW-14 Dr. Rijwan Kamle is also
important. He had conducted the post-mortem examination.
He has given cause of death as 'head injury'. In the cross-
examination he has deposed that two injuries suffered by the
victim - one on the head and one on the right forearm, were
possible by fall on the ground.
8. According to learned counsel for the applicant
even the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC is not made
out. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that
the applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused
that liberty.
9. Learned APP submitted that since 10.6.2016, the
deceased was unconscious and ultimately died on 24.6.2016
and, therefore, knowledge can be attributed to the applicant
for his act.
4 of 6
:5: 2-i-IA-3634-22.odt
10. I have considered these submissions. The appeal
is already admitted. The sentence is five years. The appeal is
not likely to be heard within a reasonably short period. Even
on merits, one of the eye witnesses has not supported the
prosecution case. The other eye witness has described the
incident. According to him, the quarrel was between the
appellant and Basappa and during that incident Kalappa was
assaulted. Whether the appellant had requisite knowledge
will have to be tested during final hearing of the appeal.
However, the evidence of PW-7 mentions that even according
to that doctor, the injury was simple in nature. There appears
to be internal damage. Thus, there is scope to argue that the
appellant will not have that knowledge about the seriousness
of the injury which he was causing. There was only one
blow given on the heard during the incident.
11. All these aspects will have to be decided during
final hearing of appeal. However, the applicant has made
out a arguable case and, therefore, I am inclined to grant
bail pending appeal.
5 of 6
:6: 2-i-IA-3634-22.odt
12. Hence the with following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.1079/2022, the applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
6 of 6
