Bail Sec 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 in Marathi

CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

IN THE COURT OF THE   DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

AT PUNE

                                                                               Criminal Appeal No. /2003

Shri _ N __ S _ P_                      )

Age 36 years, occupation - service,     )
Resident of Mehetre Vasti, Chikhali,    )
Taluka Haveli, District - Pune.                )

Versus

The State of Maharashtra                )

(Notice to be served on the              )

District Government Pleader,            )

Pune 411 005                                    )

Appellant (Original Accused)

Respondent

(Original Complainant)

CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

(I) Brief History of the Case is as follows:

1. That the appellant was charged with and tried for the offence punishable u/s 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer SI for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- I/d to suffer further SI for seven days.

2. That the said order of punishment has been passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadgaon Maval, in S.T.C.C. No. 1100/2000.

3. That the said judgment and order of punishment have been passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court on 7.3.2003.

4. That the Hon'ble Trial Court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty for the said offence u/s 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. That the alleged incident took place in the property bearing Gat No. 1426, Mehetre Vasti of the revenue village Chikhali, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, where the appellant was constructing a new house for the residence of his family, while the appellant himself is working in Mumbai, and he occasionally and during holidays visits his family residing at the place where he has constructed a new house.

5. That the said work of construction of the house was assigned to a contractor, and the father of the appellant; who is old enough, used to visit and supervise the construction work from time to time.

6. That the appellant being in regular service at Mumbai could not visit or supervise or look after the construction activity of the said work, and had hardly paid any attention to the same personally.

7. That the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses, but no witness on behalf of the accused was examined, and the appellant is so unfortunate that while recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite an enquiry made by the Hon'ble Lower Court as to  whether he had to examine any defence witness, the accused being totally ignorant and completely innocent did not avail of the opportunity offered to him, and therefore, no witness on his behalf or at his instance could be examined.

8. That the appellant respectfully submits that with a view to meeting the ends of justice, there should have been, at least, one witness, i.e. the father of the accused-appellant, who used to attend to and supervise the work of construction personally,  should  have been examined on behalf of the defence, but this did not happen, and for the same, the whole blame goes to none but the defence only.

9. That even though the said accident took place between 16.30 hours and 20.30 hours on 17.6.2000, the panchnama was drawn two days thereafter on 19.6.2000.

(II) BEING AGGRIEVED BY AND DISSATISFIED WITH the judgment and order, dated 7.3.2003, passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Vadgaon Maval, in S.T.C.C. No. 1100/2000, the present appellant prefers this memo of appeal on the following amongst the other grounds of objections thereto :

1. That the Learned Lower Court has not followed proper procedure, and this has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 

2. That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are violative of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.