High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 03 BOM CK 0225

Kakasaheb vs The State of Maharashtra

Bombay High Court · Decided on 7 March 2013 · Citation: (2014) ALLMR(Cri) 948

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.U. Chandiwal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 410 words

K.U. Chandiwal, J.—Heard. The appeal is admitted on 19th December, 2012. The appeal was directed to be heard by dispensing with paper book by order dated 19th December, 2012. On 13.2.2013, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the original complainant Kacharu Bhika Mohite, is father of the appellant - Kakasaheb, and is repenting for lodging of FIR giving rise to Sessions Case No. 268/2012, culminating into conviction of Kakasaheb. An affidavit of the informant - Kacharu, duly verified by learned Counsel, was tendered, confirmed by informant.

2.

The informant present today, interacted to the court that his old age does not permit him to further prosecute the matter, his son has already learnt a lesson by remaining in custody. He has urged, through his advocate, to acquit the appellant on undergone period of sentence.

3.

The incident has taken place on 12.12.2011. The accused, son of the informant, had abused the informant. Intervention by mother of accused did not yield result. The accused was driven out of the house. He returned home at 11.00 p.m. and under influence, set ablaze the house, by igniting with a match-stick, causing loss of cotton of 5 quintiles worth Rs. 20,000/-; five bags of Bajra, worth Rs. 6,000/-; groundnuts 70 kg. worth Rs. 2100/-; household articles, worth Rs. 10,000/-.

4.

Charge was explained to the accused for offence u/s 436, 427, 504 of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. His defence was of total denial. He did not lead any defence witness.

5.

In order to establish guilt of the accused, evidence of informant Kacharu was crucial, which has been considered by the learned Judge.

6.

Basically, when the accused/appellant was under influence, he has committed the offence of igniting his own house thereby causing huge loss to the family. He was naturally not in sense, the quarrel enraged him.

7.

The appellant has already paid price of his mis-deeds by remaining in custody from 16.12.2011. Taking survey of evidence, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant is maintained. The appellant to undergo sentence for a period of 12 months on all counts for offence u/s 436 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, and Fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- is deposited on 9.10.2012. Set off, u/s 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, be given for the period undergone by the accused/appellant. The appeal is partly allowed as above.