Santosh Umaji Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 7955 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:16767

                                                  1                          52-CrAn-1949-23.odt




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1949 OF 2023 IN APEAL/548/2023
                                      WITH APEAL/548/2023
                            WITH APPLN/1950/2023 IN APEAL/548/2023

                                       SANTOSH UMAJI JADHAV
                                                 VERSUS
                                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                    ...
                           Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke
                            APP for Respondent/State : Ms. V. N. Patil Jadhav
                         Advocate for Respondents Nos.2/injured and 3/victim :
                            Mr. M. D.Gitte (in Application No.1950 of 2023)
                                                    ...

                                                      CORAM :        S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                                      DATE       : 07-08-2023

                PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned

A.P.P. for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the

victim.

2. The applicant seeks suspension of the sentence imposed

upon him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed,

vide his judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.95 of

2018, dated 18.07.2022.

3. The injured was the wife of the accused, for which the

2 52-CrAn-1949-23.odt

applicant has been convicted. She appeared in the Court and

contended that they have the children, hence, the applicant is

required for their maintenance. She has submitted before the

Court that the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be

suspended as they have amicably settled their dispute. The

question is whether such amicable settlement is permissible.

However, the submission may be considered for the limited

purpose of considering the suspension of sentence.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised the issue of

the quantum of imprisonment. He has argued that the Court on

conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code may either

sentence the accused for a maximum term of ten years or the life

imprisonment. However, the Court in this case has sentenced the

applicant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years. Hence,

the quantum of imprisonment is apparently against the provision

of law. This objection may fall for consideration during the course

of appeal. The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that

till date the applicant has undergone five years sentence. He also

argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

there is scope to reduce the sentence imposed upon the applicant.

The Court did not examine the intention of the applicant/accused

properly. The Court also did not consider the circumstances of the

case that there was matrimonial discord between the accused and

his wife. Now, the accused has learnt a lesson by residing behind

3 52-CrAn-1949-23.odt

the bars for around five years. Nobody is there to look after the

children. The appeal may take its time to conclude. Therefore,

sentence may be suspended.

5. The learned A.P.P. would submit that considering the gravity

of the offence and the nature of injuries, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ambajogai has correctly quantified the term of

imprisonment. Now, the victim/injured cannot settle the dispute

amicably. The impugned judgment and order is well reasoned. The

offence against the applicant was proved beyond reasonable

doubt. Non-examination of the victim due to loosing the speech

also does not affect the prosecution case, when the circumstances

of the case have been correctly appreciated. Hence, the

application deserves to be rejected.

6. Considering the point raised by the learned counsel

discussed above, the applicant has a strong case on the term of

imprisonment. The imprisonment already undergone for a

substantial period, is not a ground for suspension of the sentence.

However, another legal ground falls for consideration is, whether

in the absence of the evidence of the victim, can the Court held

the accused guilty? Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

sentence may be suspended. Hence, the order:-

i) Criminal Application No.1949 of 2023 is allowed.

                                          4                         52-CrAn-1949-23.odt



ii)      The execution, implementation, effect and operation of the

sentence imposed upon the applicant to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for fifteen years for the offence punishable

under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in his judgment and

order passed in Sessions Case No.95 of 2018, dated

18.07.2022, has been suspended till the conclusion of the

appeal.

iii) The applicant be released on bail on executing PB and SB of

Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety of like amount on the

condition that he shall not cause harm to the victim, her

relatives and his children till conclusion of the appeal.

iv) Bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ambajogai, District Beed.

v) Criminal Application No.1950 of 2023 stands disposed of.

vi)      List the appeal in due course.




                                               ( S. G. MEHARE )
                                                       JUDGE

rrd