Bombay High Court
Ramesh Nathulal Solanki And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Shanti ... on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
1 8.appa.378.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.378 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 228.2023.
Meena Natthulal Salad
..vs..
State of Maharashtra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Kadukar, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 10/04/2023.
Heard.
2. This is an application under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of
execution of sentence of applicant - Meena Salad
(accused no.8), who has convicted by the Trial Court in
Special Atrocities Case No.56 of 2018 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code and directed to under to
imprisonment for life along with fine. Besides that the
applicant has also been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 148 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the applicant's contention that the Trial
Court failed in appreciating the evidence in proper
perspective thereby convicting the applicant without
evidence.
4. It is submitted that in all 16 accused were put on
2 8.appa.378.2023
trial. Out of them, accused nos.8 Meena Salad
(applicant), accused no.9 Guddi Rathod, accused no.10
Kiran @ Sugna Solanki, accused no.11 Pinky Solanki,
accused no.12 Ratna Solunku were female members. It is
pointed out that the allegations made against all female
accused are one and the same about their presence and
throwing chilly power.
5. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of
evidence has convicted the applicant Meena Salad
(accused no.8) only amongst the females whilst acquitted
rest on same set of evidence. Moreover, it is pointed out
that, the piece of evidence relating to females throwing
chilly powder is an omission in the evidence of PW11
informant. It is proved through the cross-examination
and the evidence of the Investigating Officer.
6. Undeniably, the main allegations about
assaulting the deceased by means of dangerous weapons
are against co-accused, who are the male members. At
the most, prosecution case is only about the presence of
the applicant and conviction with the aid of common
object. The applicant-lady was on bail during the trial.
Prima facie, we do not find any special feature in the
impugned judgment to distinguish the material against
the applicant from other lady accused, who were put on
trial.
7. The Trial will take its own time for disposal. The
applicant is a lady against whom allegations are about
sharing common object. In view of that, we deem it
3 8.appa.378.2023
appropriate to exercise our discretion in suspending the
execution of sentence.
8. The application is allowed. The execution of
substantive sentence passed in Special Atrocities Case
No.56 of 2018 to the extent of applicant Meena Natthulal
Salad shall stand suspended till the final disposal of the
appeal.
9. In the meantime, the applicant Meena Natthulal
Salad (accused no.8) shall be released on bail on her
furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
10. The Trial Court shall issue the release warrant
only after ensuring that entire find imposed against the
applicant - Meena Salad has been paid.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
