Single judge deciphered bail application in murder case. Court found evidence weak due to lack of eye witnesses, failure of last seen theory, and weak recovery of weapon. Granted bail on bond. Observations limited to bail decision.
Released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
31-BA-1303-19.odt
1 / 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1303 OF 2019
Ramesh Sahebrao Sonawane .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2019
P.C. :
Mamta Kale
2 / 7 31-BA-1303-19.odt
deceased, he was told that the wife of the deceased was taken by the police to Niphad. The informant was told that the car of the deceased was parked near the road in front of hotel Raigad. When the informant reached there, he and others saw that the dead body in a burnt condition was lying in a ditch near that road. From the clothes, necklace, footwear and the car, the first informant had identified it as that of his brother Champalal. On this basis, the FIR was lodged. The investigation was carried out. The applicant was arrested on 5/4/2018. As on today, the investigation is over and the chargesheet is already filed. The post mortem report shows that there were nine injuries suffered by the deceased. There were incised wounds on and around neck. The cause of death mentioned in PM report was “death due to hypovolumic shock due to cut throat injury with head injury.” There was fracture of tempero parietal bone as well.
3 / 7 31-BA-1303-19.odt
this constant harassment, the wife of the deceased had told the applicant and her brother Kailash Punekar to commit murder of the deceased. Both of them hired other accused Aakash Gangurde and Sanjay Baviskar to commit the murder. It is alleged that on 3/4/2018 the present applicant and the main accused Aakash Gangurde bought petrol in plastic bottle. The accused Gangurde on some pretext took the deceased to Manmad Railway Station and thereafter while coming back at Bokaddare field deceased was assaulted on his neck, head and throat with chopper. After committing his murder, accused poured petrol on the dead body and set it on fire.
4 / 7 31-BA-1303-19.odt
are alleged against the present applicant. However, neither of the circumstances is substantiated by evidence in the form of statements of witnesses. He submitted that the recovery at the instance of present applicant is not in consonance with the principles in respect of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
5 / 7 31-BA-1303-19.odt
around 11.30 p.m. As against this, there is a panchanama in respect of CCTV footage between 2.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. on 4/4/2018 of a platform of Manmad Railway Station. In that CCTV footage, at that time the deceased was seen in company of one person. According to that panchanama, deceased was accompanied by only one person. This panchanama was drawn in pursuance to the statement given by Aakash Gangurde. Prosecution case is that Aakash Gangurde had stated before the police that he and the deceased had come on platform No.3. The CCTV footage is in respect of platform No.3. Thus, even as per prosecution case, it was the other accused Aakash Gangurde who was seen last in company of the deceased between 2.00 to 3.00 a.m. in the night of 3/4/2019 and 4/4/2019. Thus, the present applicant was not seen in CCTV footage. Therefore, the circumstance of 'last seen together' is not an incriminating circumstance against the present applicant. It is a circumstance against the co-accused Aakash Gangurde.
6 / 7 31-BA-1303-19.odt
statement he has not stated that he had concealed the weapon at a particular spot. He had stated that he had thrown away the weapon and the plastic bottle. Thereafter, he led the police party to Bokaddare field and thereafter had produced a chopper and a plastic bottle from behind a stone. He had not stated that he had concealed those weapons. The spot is accessible to all. Thus, the circumstance of recovery of weapon is not clearly established against the applicant. He had not stated in chargesheet that he had concealed the weapon behind a particular stone. The place was accessible to all. His statement merely shows that he had thrown away those articles.
7 / 7 31-BA-1303-19.odt
the present applicant. The observations made in this order are made only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by these observations in deciding the trial. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient independent evidence connects the applicant to the murder offence given weaknesses in the chain of circumstances.
Whether the theory of last seen together and recovery of the weapon sufficiently establish innocent presence at the scene in a murder case.
Whether the evidence presented amounts to reasonable grounds for believing the applicant committed the offence warranting bail refusal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Sahebrao Sonawane
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
