Bombay High Court
Prasanna @ Balu @ Bali Sajjan Sathe vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2023
Bench: Prakash D. Naik, N.R. Borkar
2023:BHC-AS:37975-DB
12-IA-627-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 627 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1261 OF 2022
Prasanna @ Balu @ Bali Sajjan
Sathe ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Amit Icham for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for the State.
.........
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 14.12.2023
P.C. :-
This is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1261 of
2022.
2. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment and
order dated 5.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Kolhapur for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
MJ Jadhav 1 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2023 23:41:49 :::
12-IA-627-23.odt
3. The case of prosecution is that on 21.04.2018, there was
quarrel between the accused and P.W. 4. The deceased
intervened in the quarrel. He was assaulted by the accused
with the help of knife by giving single blow on abdomen. The
deceased succumbed to the injury.
4. The eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution
case. The prosecution had examined P.W. 4- Mangala Sathe
with whom there was alleged quarrel. P.W. 5 is the another eye-
witness to the incident. However, both the witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case.
5. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of two
witnesses viz. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. Both these witnesses have
deposed that the deceased had informed them that there was
a quarrel between the accused and P.W. 4 and when he tried to
intervene, he was assaulted by the accused. Thus, the
deceased made dying declaration to them.
6. The post mortem report is on record. The PM was
conducted by P.W. 11. From the medical evidence it appears
that, the accused had inflicted single blow injury on the
deceased.
MJ Jadhav 2 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2023 23:41:49 :::
12-IA-627-23.odt
7. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is
that the case is based on weak piece of evidence. Assuming
that the prosecution has proved that the applicant has
assaulted the deceased, the offence would not be covered by
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Whereas, learned APP submitted that the assault was on
vital part of the body. There is substantial evidence to convict
the applicant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
9. As stated above the case is based on the evidence of two
witnesses viz. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who has referred to the
statement made by the deceased about cause of his death.
10. The eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution
case. It also appears that there was no motive for the accused
to assault the deceased. The incident had occurred at the spur
of moment. It is debatable whether Section 302 of IPC could be
attracted. The accused gave single blow. There is no evidence
how the incident occurred.
ORDER
(i) Interim Application No. 627 of 2023 is allowed.
12-IA-627-23.odt
(ii) The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the judgment and order dated 5.03.2022 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur for an offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code is suspended and the applicant is
directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like
amount.
(iii) The applicant shall report to Rajaram Police Station,
Kolhapur once in three months on first Saturday between 11:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
( N.R. BORKAR, J.) (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
