The State Of Mah, Through v. Ijaj Mopulana Yunus,

1 APPA340.2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 340/2019 The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Loni, Dist. Amravati, ..VS..

Ijaj Moulana Yunus, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S. A. Ashirgade, APP for the applicant.

Shri S. I. Ali, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATED : 24 th February, 2020 Heard Shri S. A. Ashirgade, learned APP for the applicant and Shri S. I. Ali, learned Advocate for the respondent - accused.

Perused the judgment and deposition of the victim of crime. Shri S.A. Ashirgade, learned APP submits that there are no circumstances available on record which would create any doubt about trustworthiness of the victim of crime. He further submits that just because evidence was not supported by medical evidence, it could not be said that the victim of crime was telling lies before the Court. He also submits that there is no evidence to show that there was a previous enmity between family of the victim of crime and the respondent. Learned APP further submits that no facts and circumstances probabalising defence of enmity have

2 APPA340.2019 been brought on record rather no such defence has been taken in any way.

Upon consideration of the evidence available on record, we find that an arguable case has been made out in the present case.

Leave to file appeal is granted.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2020 Heard.

Admit.

Call for R. and P.

Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken against the respondent. JUDGE JUDGE Kirtak