Suresh Rajaram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
Judgment
Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale, adv. For the Applicant. Ms A.T.Javeri, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 6, 2011. P.C. 1 Applicant is the accused no.1 in Crime No.167 of 2010 registered at Jath police station for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the police papers. 3 It appears that the deceased Rajaram left his house on
8.11.2010 in the morning but he did not return home till night. He came back on the next day at about 9 a.m. At that time he was groaning with pain and as per the F.I.R. lodged by his mother, said Rajaram had told his mother that previous night at about 8 p.m. he had some quarrel with Suresh, i.e., the present applicant and he had given fist blows on the abdomen of Rajaram. His mother applied turmeric and some other 2 herbals but there was no relief. At about 1 a.m. in the following night, he died. Thereafter, report was lodged by mother of the deceased Rajaram. During the investigation, it was revealed that said Rajaram was traveling by truck alongwith several other persons. He was in drunken condition and he abused one Amol Sagare in filthy language and, therefore, the said Amol Sagare had beaten him with fists and kick blows. Amol was then impleaded as the accused no.2. Post Mortem report reveals that the deceased had suffered injuries on the lower chest and abdomen and fracture of ribs of the left side causing rupture of the right lung and other internal parts of the body. 4 Admittedly, the accused no.2 Amol Sagare is already granted bail. Even though in the F.I.R., name of the present applicant is shown as assailant on the basis of information given by the deceased himself to the mother, eye witnesses have not attributed any role to the present applicant. According to them only Amol Sagare have beaten him with fist and kick blows. 3 5 In view of the above circumstances, applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper the prosecution evidence.
(J.H. BHATIA,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 Jan 2011. The bench was H BHATIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.