Bombay High Court
Aarati Wd/O. Vitthal More vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 15 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar
1 Cri. W.P. No. 1113/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
33. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2020
Smt. Aarati Wd/o Vitthal More,
age 38 years occupation labour
R/o Bhimnagar, Shirdi Taluka Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through : The Superintendent of Police
Ahmednagar
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Shirdi Taluka Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar
3. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Shirdi Tal. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar
4. Shrikant Raju Shinde,
age major occup. business
R/o Kalika Nagar, Shirdi
Taluka Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
Mr. Avinash R. Salve, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respts./State
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 15th January, 2021
ORDER :
1. Heard both the sides for some time. This Court has carefully gone through the papers of investigation. ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:31:42 ::: 2 Cri. W.P. No. 1113/2020
2. Present petitioner, wife of deceased Vitthal has prayed for giving direction of fresh investigation of Crime Regn. No. 160/2020 registered with Shirdi Police Station Dist. Ahmednagar. Another prayer is made that the Supdt. of Police be directed to collect CCTV footage of the system which was available at the spot of offence at the relevant time.
3. The submissions made and the record show that already Special Case No. 43/2020 is filed but that is for offence punishable U/S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The report was given by Krishna Shejwal and the deceased was son of maternal uncle of Krishna. He gave the first information report on 13/02/2020 in respect of the incident on the same day on the basis of information collected from witnesses. In the F.I.R. there are allegations that after assaulting to the deceased, the accused virtually run over the deceased by using Innova Car. The death took place on the spot.
4. This Court has carefully gone through the post mortem report. The post mortem report shows that there were injuries like abrasions, contusions and there was injury to brain like haematoma on various places including the sub-dural haematoma. The death ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:31:42 ::: 3 Cri. W.P. No. 1113/2020 took place due to head injury.
5. The police papers contain the statements of eye witnesses like V.K. Waghmare. The first statement of this witness shows that eye witnesses did not see that the deceased was run over by the Innova vehicle. Further, during the investigation informant Krishna gave supplementary statement and he changed the stand and he contended that the deceased was pushed aside and due to that the deceased fell on head and he sustained injuries to his head. The present petitioner had not witnessed the incident but she has grievance of the aforesaid nature. The report of the police and papers show that there was no CCTV system fixed at the spot of offence and no such CCTV footage was collected by the police. In any case, in the present proceeding also it is not a contention of the petitioners that there was CCTV footage showing that the deceased was run over by using Innova Car.
6. In the present matter, the crime was registered initially for ofence punishalle U/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code lut the chargesheet came to le fled U/S. 304 of I.P.C. When it is the case of homicidal death, ordinarily, it is desiralle to fle the chargesheet for the ofence punishalle U/S. 302 of I.P.C. It needs to le left with the Court to ascertain as to whether the ingredients of provisions of ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:31:42 ::: 4 Cri. W.P. No. 1113/2020 sections 299 & 300 of I.P.C. are there. The Investigating Ofcer needs to avoid exercise to ascertain as to whether there was intention or there was only knowledge. That exercise is expected from the Court. In the present matter, the chargesheet is now fled U/S. 304 of I.P.C. and in view of the facts of the matter, it is now for the Trial Court to ascertain as to whether charge is to le framed for the ofence punishalle U/S. 302 of I.P.C. That power is there with the Trial Court in view of the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court will defnitely go through the material collected and frame the charge. As ofence punishalle U/S. 304 of I.P.C. is the lesser ofence of the ofence punishalle U/S. 302 of I.P.C., it is always desiralle to see that the charge is framed for the ofence of murder. On the lasis of evidence adduced lefore the Court, the Court then can ascertain as to whether ofence punishalle U/S. 302 of I.P.C. is committed or ofence punishalle U/S. 304 of I.P.C. is committed. This Court holds that making all these olservations will le sufcient for the present purpose. With these olservations, the present proceeding is disposed of.
( M.G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
Madkar
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:31:42 :::