Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1718/2017
SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATIL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No.101896/2019 - GRANT OF BAIL)
Date : 01-02-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR
Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv.
Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of present appeal.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2015, whereby the High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and, while convicting that appellant of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2023.02.01
The allegations had been that the appellant killed his wife by 18:12:39 IST Reason: strangulation. It appears that the Trial Court acquitted the 1 appellant essentially on the ground that only evidence against him was of extra-judicial confession made to PW-2, who was Police Patil of the village and the alleged confession made before him was not admissible in evidence. The High Court, on the other hand, was of the view that conviction could be based on such confession and has also referred to the other factors that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant; and he failed to discharge the burden lying on him in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and also failed to produce any evidence to probabilise his plea of alibi.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail with reference to the findings recorded by the High Court and has also submitted that as per the instructions and information available with him, the appellant, after conviction by the High Court, was taken into custody on 18.06.2016 but, the exact period of his custody during trial, is presently not available with him. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submits want of instruction in regard to period of custody during trial.
Be that as it may, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into account, particularly the fact that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant, who is said to be now about 66 years of age; and the hearing of the present appeal is likely to take some time, we are of the view that further detention of the appellant until final disposal of this appeal will not serve the cause of justice.
Taking the totality of circumstances into account, we are inclined to suspend further execution of sentence awarded to the 2 appellant.
Accordingly, the application (IA No.101896 of 2019) is allowed; and further execution of the sentence awarded to the appellant is ordered to remain suspended until final disposal of this appeal. He may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court, who may take steps for ensuring appearance of the appellant before it for further necessary steps.
(ARJUN BISHT) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
3