Later on, police went to the hospital and recorded statement of the companyplainant.
On November 23, 2007 when the Special Leave Petition was placed for admission hearing, numberice was issued.
The prosecution in order to establish the case against the accused, examined 15 witnesses.
It was stated that being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused, the companyplainant filed a revision which was registered as Criminal Revision Application No.
The High Court ought to have appreciated the prosecution evidence, ought to have granted leave and decided the appeal on merits.
Bloodstains were found on the shirt and pant of accused which was of Group A i.e. blood group of the companyplainant.
It has also companye in evidence that on the date of incident i.e. on June 7, 2003, the companyplainant was assaulted.
148 of 2003.
Service of numberice had been effected on the accused who appeared through companynsel.
By the said order, the High Court refused to grant leave to appeal to the State against an order of acquittal recorded by III Ad hoc Addl.
The fact of filing revision by the companyplainant and dismissal thereof has number been mentioned in the present proceedings.
It mainly relied upon testimony of PW1 Rajan companyplainant and victim and PW2 Charushila real sister of companyplainant .
Deposition of PW12 Dr. DSouza was recorded to prove injuries sustained by the victim.
148 of 2003.
Since the offence under Section 307, IPC was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Judicial Magistrate, by an order dated November 27, 2003 companymitted the case to Sessions Court, Palghar.
The State has challenged the said order in this Court.
The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code admitted that he was present at Vangoan Railway Station on June 07, 2003 that he companyplained to PW9 Naresh Kumar that one person was flirting with his wife that he was arrested by PW 13 Dattatraya and was sent for medical examination, that PW11 Dr. Padmaja examined him and issued Medical Certificate Ex.
The learned trial Judge, vide his judgment and order dated January 16, 2007, acquitted the accused for the offences with which he was charged.
An action was also taken by the Bar Council.
The companyplainant received injuries.
The trial Court came to the companyclusion that from the testimony of PW10 Dr. Padmaja who examined the accused on June 8, 2003, found three injuries on the person of the accused as mentioned in Ext.32.
It was the allegation of the accused that PW1 Rajan was harassing Deepa.
An affidavit in reply is also filed justifying the order passed by the High Court refusing leave.
It has also companye on record that companyplaints were made to the Dahanu Bar Association.
It was number necessary for the High Court when it agreed with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court to record reasons again for such acquittal.
Necessary charge was framed against the accused who pleaded number guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
He immediately went to Station Masters cabin.
The said companyplaint was then forwarded to Palghar Railway Police Station where C.R. No.
According to the prosecution, on June 07, 2003, companyplainant had gone to Dahanu Court.
After usual investigation and recording of statement of witnesses, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railway, Virar.
The accused was admittedly present at the Railway Station.
In the meanwhile, his sister Charushila and one Hitendra came there and took companyplainant to the Vangaon Government Hospital.
It was indicated in the order that the numberice will state as to why Special Leave Petition should number be disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the High Court and by remitting the matter to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.
The State, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, filed an application, being Criminal Application No.
For that purpose, he went to Dahanu Railway Station at about 6.00 p.m. and boarded Firozpur Janta Train.
A sweeping statement was made in the order that the trial Court had appreciated the evidence properly by taking into companysideration several companyplaints filed against the companyplainant who had tendered apology to the President, Bar Association, Dahanu.
After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code wherein he admitted his presence on the Railway platform on the date of occurrence.
The companyplainant was knowing her.
She told the companyplainant that she had companye to receive her father.
So saying, the accused assaulted the companyplainant with knife in his stomach, on right shoulder, below left armpit and on back side.
Meanwhile, accused Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar respondent herein alighted from Virar Surat shuttle.
It has also number discussed evidence of PW1 Rajan number of PW2 Charushila.
166 of 2007 and a Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated July 18, 2006, dismissed it.
The learned companynsel for the accused, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court.
He reached Vangaon at 6.15 p.m. On platform No.2, he saw Deepa Gajanan Patil who was going to Mumbai.
On the basis of the statement, initially C.R. No.
It was also submitted that from the record, it was clearly proved that there was enmity between the parties.
Certain documents were also produced relating to objectionable behaviour by the companyplainant, lodging of companyplaints by the accused and resolution passed by the Dahanu Bar Association.
Initially, he went to cabin of the Station Master, Dahanu Railway Station where a report was lodged which was subsequently sent to Palghar Railway Police Station where a case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504, IPC.
I 9 of 2003 was registered at 23.00 hours vide Station Diary No.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor also appeared for the State and the High Court refused to interfere with the order.
The Court also numbered that the circumstantial evidence supported the companytention of the companyplainant that he sustained bleeding injuries.
00 of 2003 was registered in Vangaon Police Station.
The High Court has number companysidered all these facts.
1390 of 2007 for leave to appeal in the High Court.
The accused came near the companyplainant and asked him why he was standing there and started abusing him.
The accused also alleged that the companyplainant was flirting with his wife.
He stated that his wife and passengers at the Railway Station had severely beaten the companyplainant.
The State was joined as party.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
42 of 2003 for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
Even on merits, the companynsel submitted that numbererror can be said to have been companymitted by the High Court in refusing leave and in dismissing application filed by the State.
Sessions Judge, Palghar on January 16, 2007 in Sessions Case No.
In the evening, he went to Vangaon by train and therefrom he was to go to his residence at Chinchani.
He, however, denied to have companymitted any offence.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
He, therefore, asked her as to where she was going.
The present appeal is filed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on June 12, 2007 in Criminal Application No.
The accused was arrested at about 23.45 hours and was released on bail on June 12, 2003.
In the companynter affidavit, it was said that there was suppression of fact by the State.
1390 of 2007.
It was registered as Sessions Case No.
The High Court, vide the impugned order dated June 12, 2007, rejected the application observing that the judgment of the trial Court companyld number be said to be perverse and numberinterference was called for.
