Dadabhau @ Prem Nivrutti Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3490 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2024 Dadabhau @ Prem Nivrutti Pawar .....Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent ----- Mr. Pranav Badheka, Advocate (appointed through Legal Aid) for the Applicant.

Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent-State. ----- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 06th JANUARY, 2025 P.C. :

1.

This is an Application for bail pending Appeal. 2.

Heard Shri Pranav Badheka, learned appointed counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

3.

The prosecution case is that on 17.4.2019, the Applicant assaulted the deceased Saddam with a knife causing seven injuries resulting in his death.

4.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Deshmane(PS)

: 2 :

case would not fall within the meaning of 'murder' as defined under Section 300 of IPC, but, it would fall within the First Exception to Section 300. He submitted that the quarrel started suddenly and it was only because the deceased had taken the mobile phone of the Applicant and when the Applicant asked for returning that mobile phone and when Saddam refused, this incident took place. 5.

Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to him, the nature of injuries and the number of injuries show that the case may not fall within the First exception mentioned under Section 300 of IPC.

6.

We have considered these submissions. The prosecution case is deposed by three eye witnesses, namely, PW-4 Rushikesh Pendhari, PW-5 Sanjay Jadhav and PW-6 Shadab Shaikh. Out of them, PW-5 Sanjay Jadhav was not knowing the accused and there is no test identification parade held. He only identified the accused through the Video Conferencing.

7.

However, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6 is more important. They have narrated the incident in detail. Out of them, PW-4 has stated that at about 3.00 p.m. on 17.4.2019 Saddam took

: 3 :

away the Applicant's mobile phone. After some time, the Applicant approached him and demanded back his mobile phone. There was a quarrel. The Applicant removed the knife from his pocket and assaulted Saddam. PW-6 had actually seen the assault. 8.

In this context, the medical evidence is important. PW7 Dr. Hemant Ghangle has described seven injuries suffered by the deceased, out of which five injuries were stab wounds and two other were punctured wounds. All the injuries were on the chest except two injuries which were on the left forearm. 9.

Thus, it can be seen that the Applicant was carrying a knife and he inflicted seven blows. Therefore, there is an element of premeditation as well as intention to commit murder, which can be seen at this stage. Beyond that it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence for consideration of bail pending Appeal. No case for grant of bail is made out. The Application is, therefore, dismissed. ( S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS) by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date:

2025.01.13 12:06:10 +0530 PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE