The State Of Maharashtra v. Deepak@Mistri Nago Patil
als59.doc ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs.
Deepak @ Mistri Nago Patil
...Respondent
Ms M.H.Mhatre, APP for the applicant Mr.Radheshyam N. Gaikwad for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2019 P.C.:
The State Government has sought leave to prefer appeal by way of present application under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 against the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2017 in Sessions Case No.262 of 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Grater Mumbai acquitting the respondents from the offence punishable under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act,1951.
Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record including the notes of evidence.
There are two injured eye witnesses in the present crime namely P.W.No.1-Sanjay Laxman Murudkar and P.W.No.2-Jyoti Sanjay Murudkar. The medical certificates produced on record and proved by the
als59.doc Prosecution Witness No.10-Dr.Swati Eknath Panchpinde are contradictory in their own terms. The injuries mentioned in the first certificate did not tally with the injuries mentioned in the second certificate in its totality, i.e the place of injury and its size. P.W.NO.1 Sanjay has suffered injury on his left hand. The injuries mentioned in the Injury Certificate according to us do not attract the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC. The evidence available on record creates a doubt in the mind of this Court about the entire incident and the injuries suffered by the said injured witness thereto. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial Court has recorded a finding of acquittal in view of the evidence available on record.
On perusal of the entire evidence this Court is of the opinion that the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable and probable view in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We find no merit in the present application seeking leave to prefer appeal. Application is accordingly rejected. (A.S.GADKARI,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)