IN APEALST/6430/2023 v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The appellant has been convicted in Sessions Case No.35 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur on 19.07.2013 after holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment…
Judgment
Mr. Sunil Bappasaheb Jadhav, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. V. S. Choudhari, APP for the respondent – State. ... … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ. DATE : 7th July, 2023 ORDER :- . Issue notice to the respondent. Learned APP waives notice for respondent – State.
#2. Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 3572 days in filing criminal appeal.
#3. The appellant has been convicted in Sessions Case No.35 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur on 19.07.2013 after holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (1) 910-appln-2273-2023 (delay).odt for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. It appears that since then atleast the appellant is in jail. The impugned judgment would show that the accused came to be arrested on 10.06.2012 and since then he is in custody. Under the said circumstance, for the reasons stated in the application, the application stands allowed and disposed of.
#4. Registry to verify and register the criminal appeal. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ] JUDGE [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE (2)
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 07 Jul 2023. The bench was ANWADI, ABHAY S WAGHWASE.
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.