RAMESH DADA KALEL vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

APEAL_1133_23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2023 Ramesh Dada Kalel … Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents Mr. Tapan Thatte a/w. Mr. Vivek Arote and Mr. Akshay Dingale, i/b. Mr.Dayanand Mane for appellant. Dr. Dhanalakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for respondent No.1-State. Ms. P. S. Potdar (appointed through legal aid) for respondent No.2. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ RESERVED ON: 16th DECEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 19th JANUARY, 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Justice Manish Pitale, J): . The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Court of Extra Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court). By the said judgment and order, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of life under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and to pay fine of ₹ 50,000, in default of which he shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one month. 2. The challenge to the impugned judgment and order on behalf of the appellant, has two facets. Firstly, the findings rendered by the Trial Court have been challenged on merits and secondly, it is claimed that there has been a fundamental procedural error 1/26 APEAL_1133_23.doc committed by the Trial Court from the stage of framing of charge to passing the final order of conviction and sentence, which has caused grave prejudice to the appellant, resulting in failure of justice. On both counts, it is claimed that the impugned judgment and order, deserves to be set aside. Before appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, it would be necessary to ref