Bombay High Court
Gopal Ranglal Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Rajesh S. Patil
cria2743.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2743 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.605 OF 2022
Gopal S/o Ranglal Rathod,
Age-39 years, Occu:Agriculture,
R/o-Kumbhari Khurd Tanda,
Tq-Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Pahur Police Station,
Pahur, Tq-Jamner,
Dist-Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.A.M. Gholap Advocate for Applicant.
Mr.S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 30th SEPTEMBER 2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 21st OCTOBER 2022
ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :
1. Present Application has been filed for suspension of
sentence. Applicant is original accused No.1. Present applicant
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 20:21:55 :::
cria2743.22
2
has been sentenced, after holding him guilty, in Sessions Case
No.68 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 25 th
July 2022, thus:
" (1) Accused No.1 Gopal Ranglal Rathod is convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(2) Accused No.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months.
(3) Accused No.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable
under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
(4) Both the above substantive sentences to run
concurrently."
2. Heard Mr. Gholap, learned Advocate for the applicant and
Mr. Ghayal, learned APP for the respondent - State.
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 20:21:55 :::
cria2743.22
3
3. It appears from the impugned Judgment as well as the
documents produced on record in the form of paper-book that
present applicant / accused No.1 himself had lodged report
against one Mithun Nandlal Rathod with Police Station, Pahur
which was under Section 302, 376-A(2)(f)(l) of the Indian Penal
Code. However, it appeared to the Investigating Officer that the
said story is false or not true. Involvement of said Mithun Rathod
was not found and therefore, his name came to be deleted and
only offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was
taken up for investigation. Further, it appears that other Sections
came to be added, especially Section 498-A, 323, 201, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. From the medical evidence and the post-mortem report, it
can be seen that the death was homicidal in nature. The fact
disputed appears to be, as to who was the author of the crime.
Here it is to be noted that the father and mother of the present
applicant were accused Nos.2 and 3 and the trial Court has
acquitted them from all the offences, whereas the present
applicant has also been acquitted of the offence punishable
under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The conviction appears to be based on the
circumstantial evidence, which is held to be proved and also that
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2022 20:21:55 :::
cria2743.22
4
the death was in the hut in the field belonging to the accused
and therefore accused No.1 being custodian of wife, it appears
that he has been held guilty. The sequence of happenings has
been taken note of, yet there was basically a theory that was put
by the present applicant in the form of the First Information
Report and even some part of the investigation was made
against said Mithun Rathod. Thereafter said Mithun Rathod has
been posed as witness i.e. PW-5. All these facts are definitely
required to be considered.
5. The Appeal is admitted and it will take time to be heard
and disposed of. Another fact is that accused No.1 - present
applicant was on bail throughout the trial and it is not shown
that he has committed any breach of the conditions those have
been imposed and therefore, till the conclusion of the Appeal,
the sentence needs to be suspended and the applicant deserves
to be released on bail. Hence following order:
ORDER
(I) Application stands allowed.
(II) The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant in
Sessions Case No.68 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge,
cria2743.22
Jalgaon on 25th July 2022 stands suspended till the final hearing
and disposal of Criminal Appeal No.605 of 2022.
(III) The applicant - Gopal S/o Ranglal Rathod be released on
bail on P.R. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifth Thousand) with two
solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
each.
(IV) The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity.
(V) The applicant shall remain present before the learned Trial
Judge once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the
Appeal, commencing from the date he tenders bail papers and
thereafter, the Trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequent
appearances.
(VI) In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the
applicant to remain present before the Trial Court, the Trial Court
to inform this Court about the same and in that eventuality, the
prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of the bail granted to the applicant.
(VII) Bail before the Trial Court.
[RAJESH S. PATIL] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
asb/SEP22
