SURYAKANT DADASAHEB BITALE versus DILIP BAJRANG KALE & ANR.

SURYAKANT DADASAHEB BITALE versus DILIP BAJRANG KALE & ANR.

Sessions Judge had properly considered all relevant admissible evidence, including multiple dying declarations, material evidence was not overlooked, and prosecution could not explain inconsistency or need for second dying declaration; High Court was not justified in interfering in revision as the Sessions Court's view was reasonable and not perverse.

Parties
Appellant: Suryakant Dadsaheb Bitale; Respondent: Dilip Bajrang Kale; Respondent: Unknown (State of Maharashtra)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal Against High Court Revisional Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Code of Criminal Procedure S.397, Indian Penal Code Ss. 498 a and 302, Revisional Jurisdiction, Order of Acquittal, Dying Declarations
Criminal Law Code of Criminal Procedure S.397 Indian Penal Code Ss. 498 a and 302 Revisional Jurisdiction Order of Acquittal Dying Declarations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suryakant Dadsaheb Bitale

Appellant

Dilip Bajrang Kale

Respondent

Unknown (State of Maharashtra)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal Against High Court Revisional Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in revision under Section 397 CrPC
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court had properly considered the admissible evidence, especially dying declarations

Ratio Decidendi

Sessions Judge had properly considered all relevant admissible evidence, including multiple dying declarations, material evidence was not overlooked, and prosecution could not explain inconsistency or need for second dying declaration; High Court was not justified in interfering in revision as the Sessions Court's view was reasonable and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 321 of 2004 set aside
  • Order of acquittal passed by Sessions Court affirmed