Bombay High Court
Sachin Namdev Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
Digitally signed
by CHITRA
SANJAY
CHITRA SONAWANE
SANJAY Date:
SONAWANE 2023.02.09
12:40:01
+0530
Chitra Sonawane
1
902-IA-3488-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3488 OF 2022
IN
CRI.APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2018
Sachin Namdev Gaikwad ... Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
.....
Ms Madhavi Gomathieswaran, Advocate i/b Dr. Yug Chaudhary,
for the appellant.
Smt.GP Mulekar, APP for the Respondent-State.
......
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 7th FEBRUARY, 2023.
P.C. :-
. Applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Relying on the order of the Apex Court, in Suleman Vs. The
State of Uttar Pradesh, in Miscellaneous Application No. 764 of
2022, in Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2022 , a prayer is made for
Chitra Sonawane
902-IA-3488-2022.doc
release of the Applicant, he having already completed 10 years of
his conviction. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has also relied
on the fact that the Appellant, as on date, has completed 11 years
and 10 months of conviction which includes remission of 3 years
and 1 month.
3. Apart from above, bail is also sought on merits of the matter,
as it is claimed that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and
the Applicant/Appellant himself after noticing body of the
deceased in his Salon has reported the matter to the police.
4. Learned APP submits that the Applicant pursuant to the
conviction, has undergone only 5 years and 9 months of actual
sentence whereas at pre-trail stage, he was in jail for 2 years and 11
months and remission of 3 years and one month is granted. As
such, according to her, the Appellant does not satisfy the
condition, as mentioned in the Judgment of Suleman (supra).
Apart from above, even on merits, learned APP submits that there
is strong and sufficient evidence to infer involvement of the
Applicant in the crime and which is formed to be the basis of award
of conviction.
5. We have appreciated the submissions.
Chitra Sonawane
902-IA-3488-2022.doc
6. We have gone through the evidence with assistance of
respective counsel and on merits we are convinced that there is
strong evidence available against the Applicant, warranting not to
exercise discretion as provided under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. in
favour of the Applicant/Appellant particularly, having regard to the
testimony of witnesses who has seen the deceased being in the
company of the Appellant, lastly.
7. Apart from above, recovery of weapon, blood stained clothes,
sufficiently connects the Appellant, in the crime in question. The
deceased/Doctor was murdered by the Appellant/Barber in his
Salon within 3 days of the marriage of the deceased. Motive
attributed to the Appellant is that of injecting HIV virus by the
deceased in the body of the Appellant, in the matter of extending
medical treatment, because of which the Appellant wanted to take
revenge on the deceased.
8. As far as, reliance placed on the judgment in the matter of
Suleman (supra) is concerned, this court considering the fact that
detailed arguments were canvassed, was inclined to take up the
appeal for final hearing, however, learned Counsel for the
Appellant, on instructions, informed that instructions are only to
argue the application and not the appeal.
Chitra Sonawane
902-IA-3488-2022.doc
9. In view of above, the Application stands rejected.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
