Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Hears State Appeal Against Acquittal of Accused in Kidnapping and Murder Case. The Case Involves Circumstantial Evidence Including Phone Calls, Demands for Ransom, and Discovery of Dead Body.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
Admin
2026-08-30 00:36:13
  • 83
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of offences under sections 384, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 85

Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1998

2017-06-06

S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane

S.J. Salgare for appellant, Satej S. Jadhav for respondents

The State of Maharashtra

Anand s/o Pandurang Dandale and Suresh s/o Madan Jadhav

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal by State against acquittal of accused for offences under Indian Penal Code.

Remedy Sought

State seeks conviction of accused for offences under sections 384, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC.

Filing Reason

State challenged acquittal by trial court on ground that evidence was sufficient.

Previous Decisions

Trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad) acquitted the accused in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1996 by judgment dated 22.05.1998.

Submissions/Arguments

APP submitted that prosecution established circumstantial evidence and trial court's acquittal was incorrect. Defence counsel argued that circumstances relied upon are not established (appeal pending).

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is filed by the State, under section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment and order dated 22.05.1998 of acquittal of the respondents (accused Nos.1 and 2) for the offences punishable under sections 384, 302 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him the prosecution has established the circumstances relied upon by it, which we would refer later on to avoid repetition.

Procedural History

FIR dated 26.12.1993 registered as Crime No.264 of 1993 for offences under sections 363, 384 read with 34 IPC. Investigation carried out by PSI Mulak and later by PI Mayal; accused arrested on 27.12.1993; memorandum statements recorded, dead body and motorcycle discovered in well; sections 302 and 201 IPC added; handwriting samples taken; chargesheet filed in Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad; case committed to Sessions Court; trial held; both accused acquitted on 22.05.1998. Appeal filed by State; during pendency, accused No.1 died on 30.07.2004, appeal abated against him.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 384, 302, 201, 34, 363
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(1), 378(3), 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
circumstantial evidence acquittal kidnapping murder ransom demand discovery of dead body handwriting expert panchanama memorandum statement

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court of India Considered Appeals in Export Control Dispute Concerning Non-Basmati Rice and Edible Rice Bran Oil. Legal Issue Involved Application of Clause 15(j) of Export (Control) Order, 1988 and Minimum Export Price Restrictions to 100% E... 2026-09-19 18:17:57
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Lessor's Appeal Against Dismissal of Counterclaim for Eviction and Rent in Lease Dispute — Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 Section 41 Bars Counterclaim in High Court Original Suit for Specific Performance. 2026-09-19 18:17:56
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. The prosecut...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Orders in Arbitration Dispute Due to Lack of Consent. App...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Writ Petitions by Lessees in Land Encr...

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for ...

Lost Your Password?