Rajendra Dattatraya Kadam vs State Of Maharashtra - Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6452 Bom

                               :1:                     17-i-revn.st.11416-23.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION [STAMP] NO.11416 OF 2023

 Rajendra Dattatraya Kadam                              .....Applicant
             Versus
 State of Maharashtra                                   .... Respondent

                              -----
 Mr. Hitesh Mutha, Advocate (Legal Aid Appointed Advocate) for
 the Applicant.
 Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
                              -----

                                     CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                     DATE : 06th JULY, 2023

 P.C. :

 1.               Heard Shri Hitesh Mutha, learned appointed

 counsel for the Applicant and Ms. M.R. Tidke, learned APP

 for the Respondent-State.

 2.               Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that

 the incident was dated 18.12.2005. It had taken place in the

 evening.        It is alleged that the Applicant along with the

 Accused No.1 snatched a gold ganthan and a pendent from

 PW-2 i.e. first informant's neck. They went away on a

 motorcycle. After that the FIR was lodged at Satara City

 Police Station vide C.R. No.144/2005.

                                                                          1 of 2

  Deshmane(PS)




::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023                   ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2023 18:33:10 :::
                                :2:                        17-i-revn.st.11416-23.odt

 3.                Learned counsel for the Applicant invited my

 attention to paragraph-22 of the appellate judgment in

 which it was mentioned that the test identification parade of

 the Applicant was not held. He submitted that the first

 informant identified the Applicant in the Court after three

 and half years from the date of incident. Therefore, identity

 of the Applicant was in doubt. He further submitted that the

 recovery evidence is doubtful.

 4.                Learned counsel for the Applicant has raised

 arguable points. Hence, the following order:

                                :: O R D E R ::

          i.     Admit.

          ii.    Call for record and proceedings.

iii. Hearing is expedited.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Deshmane (PS)

2 of 2