Quashed

Ramesh @ Chhotu Ramchandra Prajapati v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021APEAL/221/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High court appellate bench quashed conviction for murder under IPC 302 held that circumstantial evidence was incomplete due to missing informants and unreliable discovery.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ramesh @ Chhotu Ramchandra Prajapati Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap (Corrected as per Speaking order dt.29.10.2021)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2016

¶5

Ramesh @ Chhotu Ramchandra Prajapati
Prisoner No. 10181, Circle No. 3/1
Nasik Road Central Jail,
Nasik Road 422 101

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Waliv Police Station,
Vasai)

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Ms. Vaishali V. Thorat, for the appellant
Ms. S.V. Sonawane, APP for respondent – State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
 PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.

¶12

RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th OCTOBER, 2021

¶13

JUDGMENT :- (Per Prithviraj K. Chavan)

¶14

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence of the respondent / accused, handed over by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

2. Factual matrix can be summarized as follows;

¶16

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAPDate: JAGTAP 2021.10.2916:01:40 +0530

¶17

3. It is a bitter and sordid story of two friends turning foes on

¶18

1 of 20

¶19

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶20

account of money, costing in loosing life for one of them.

¶21

4. Incidentally, both are “Ramesh”. The deceased is Ramesh Gupta whereas the respondent accused is Ramesh Prajapati.

¶22

5. PW-2 Jitendra Paswan runs a small buffing company at Mira Estate, Nala Sopara. He had four employees. Deceased Ramesh was one of them. Deceased Ramesh had brought respondent / accused Ramesh and recommended PW-2 Jintendra Paswan to give him an employment as he (accused) is his friend. Accused Ramesh was accordingly employed by PW-2 Jitendra Paswan.

¶23

6. Accused Ramesh worked for only 5 days with the company. PW-2 Jitendra Paswan allowed him to stay in the company and handed over the keys to him.

¶24

7. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Ramesh had taken / grabbed some amount (money) from the accused over which there was a wordy duel.

¶25

8. The incident occurred in the dawn of 23^rd June, 2012 at Vasant Patil chawl where deceased Ramesh used to stay with his wife, brother-in-law (informant - Ramchandra Gupta) and son of his sister. On the day of incident, his wife had been to her natal house.

¶26

9. The accused came to the house of the deceased around 12.00 p.m. The informant – Ramchandra Gupta, brother-in-

¶27

2 of 20

¶28

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶29

law of the deceased and son of his sister were at home.
Deceased was not at home at that time. Accused again
visited the house of the deceased at 9.00 p.m. on the same
day. Deceased returned home after some time. They chatted
and thereafter all of them had dinner at around 10.30 p.m.

¶30

10. As it was too hot, deceased Ramesh and accused Ramesh decided to sleep outside the house abutting the front door. Accordingly, deceased arranged mattress and bed sheets for both of them. The brother-in-law and nephew of the deceased slept inside the room.

¶31

11. Around 4.00 p.m. Ramchandra Gupta (informant) woke up to urinate. He was shocked to notice deceased Ramesh lying in a pool of blood. However, accused Ramesh was missing. He immediately called PW-1 Vasant Patil, the owner of the chawl and others. They searched for the accused but in vain. Obviously, they strongly believed that it was none other than the accused Ramesh who had brutally murdered deceased Ramesh by hitting on his head with some weapon and fled the spot.

¶32

12. A complaint came to be lodged by Ramchandra Gupta ( Exh.38 ) promptly on 23^rd June, 2012. An FIR came to be registered vide no. 171 of 2012 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with Waliv Police Station. PW-7 Pradeep Mane, who was attached to Waliv Police station as a police inspector, conducted investigation into the crime. He visited

¶33

3 of 20

¶34

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶35

the scene of occurrence. An inquest panchanama was drawn
(Exh.10). The dead body of the deceased Ramesh was sent
for post mortem. Spot panchanama was drawn by
summoning two panch witnesses which is proved (Exh.19).
He seized the bed sheet, mattress etc. in the presence of
panch witnesses. He had also summoned PW-6 Amol Ghag,
a photographer to snap the photographs of the scene of
occurrence and the deceased.

¶36

13. He drew a sketch of the spot through a circle officer which is proved at Exh.40 . A seizure panchanama was drawn.

¶37

14. On 31^st July, 2012, API Mr. Wakode arrested the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that while in police custody, the accused voluntarily made a statement pursuant to which, a Stone weighing about 8 to 9 kg came to be discovered, which was duly sealed under a panchanama Exh.21 . By virtue of another voluntary statement of the accused Ramesh, clothes which were on his person at the time of incident also came to be seized under a panchanama Exh.41 .

¶38

15. The seized muddemal was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receiving the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and after recording the statements of the witnesses, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused Ramesh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vasai.

¶39

4 of 20

¶40

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶41

16. A charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( Exh. 4 ). It was read over and explained to him in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The defence of the accused is one of denial of the commission of an offence alleged and false implication. No defence evidence has been adduced on his behalf.

¶42

17. The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses coupled with some documentary evidence.

¶43

18. The learned Additional Sessions Judge having considered the evidence on record, which is in the form of circumstantial evidence found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life inter alia fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for 15 days.

¶44

19. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent State.

¶45

20. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we have meticulously scanned the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis documentary evidence.

¶46

21. The learned APP would argue that the prosecution has duly established it’s case on the basis of circumstantial evidence sans any eye-witness and the entire chain of circumstances

¶47

5 of 20

¶48

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶49

connecting the appellant with the crime. Our attention has
been drawn to the evidence of PW-1 Vasant Patil - the owner
of the chawl, PW-2 Jitendra Paswan - employer of the
deceased Ramesh and accused Ramesh as well as the
discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at the behest
of the accused Ramesh. In short, the learned APP has
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

¶50

22. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the appellant highlighted various lacunae in the prosecution case more particularly, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by emphasizing the fact that the prosecution has not examined the complainant / first informant - Ramchandra Gupta, on whose behalf the criminal law has been set into motion and he was the one, who had first alleged to have noticed deceased lying in a pool of blood. It is further submitted that the evidence qua discovery as well as the employment of the deceased with PW-2 Jitendra Paswan has also not been proved and, therefore, it is the case of at least giving a benefit of doubt to the accused - Ramesh.

¶51

23. There is no much dispute on the fact that the deceased Ramesh died a homicidal death. PW-3 Dr. Soham Dhanger, who had conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence testified that he conducted the autopsy between 12.10 p.m. to 1.20 p.m. and noticed following antemortem external injuries :-

¶52

6 of 20

¶53

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶54

“1. Cut lacerated wound on the right side of forehead oblique 7 cm x .5 cm x 05 cm with sharp edges.

¶55

2. Cut lacerated wound 4 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm anterior side of forehead.

¶56

3. Cut wound on the right side of head 4 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm.

¶57

4. Fracture of skull on the anterior side of the head.”

¶58

24. His evidence further indicate that there were corresponding external injuries, which have been recorded in column 19 of the post mortem notes, as follows :-

¶59

“1. Cut wound on the right side 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm anterior side of head.

¶60

2. Cut cound on the right side near wound 4 x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm

¶61

3. Cut wound on the right side near (R) wound 4 x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm Skull fracture on the anterior side.”

¶62

25.The autopsy report is proved at Exh.15.

¶63

26. According to this witness, the Investigating Officer had sought his opinion on a stone alleged to have been recovered by the agency. He gave his opinion, which is at Exh.16 by contending that the injuries on the person of the deceased Ramesh are possible with the said stone, which was weighing about 10 to 12 kg. Nothing could be elicited from his mouth, which would render his testimony unbelievable as his evidence is restricted only to the extent of an opinion of expert as to the probable cause of death. The inquest

¶64

7 of 20

¶65

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶66

panchanama drawn before conducting the autopsy also
corroborates the external injuries.

¶67

27. Once it has been established that deceased Ramesh died a homicidal death, next important question would be as to whether, by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubts that it was none other than the appellant - accused, who was responsible for causing such intentional grievous injuries to deceased Ramesh, resulting into his instantaneous death. For that, one has to delve deep into the circumstances sought to be produced by the prosecution.

¶68

28. The prosecution mainly revolved around the following few circumstances, they are:- (a) the deceased was last seen alive together with accused Ramesh; (b) the deceased Ramesh and accused Ramesh were acquainted with each other; (c) the accused Ramesh had voluntarily discovered blood stained stone as well as blood stained clothes; and (d) abscondence of the accused Ramesh immediately after the incident.

¶69

29. In reference to the cases where there is no direct evidence and the decision has to rest on circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that such evidence must satisfy the following tests :-

¶70

(a) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is

¶71

8 of 20

¶72

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶73

sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
(b)Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
or unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

¶74

(c)The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and

¶75

(d)The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation
on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

¶76

30. To elucidate the various circumstances appearing in the evidence, we have analyzed and discussed each of the circumstances.

¶77

“Deceased Ramesh was last seen alive together in the
company of accused Ramesh” :-

¶78

31. Most crucial and important evidence of the complainant Ramchandra Gupta, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased Ramesh is missing, in the sense, no plausible and satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution for his non-examination. It is more astonishing that even nephew of the deceased Ramesh could not be traced by the Investigating Agency, which is something unfathomable. The best evidence of complainant - Ramchandra Gupta, who alleged to have, first in point of time, noticed that deceased Ramesh was lying in a pool of blood around 4.00 a.m. on

¶79

9 of 20

¶80

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶81

23rd June, 2012 and missing accused Ramesh from the spot
when he (Ramchandra Gupta) woke up for urination, indeed
gives big jolt to the prosecution qua first circumstance of
“last seen together”. Merely stating that despite due
diligence the Agency could not find out their whereabouts
merits to be laughed at and wept over. No sincere efforts
appears to have been made in that regard. Instead, PW-1
Vasant Patil, who is the owner of the chawl has been
examined by the prosecution. Due to absence of
Ramchandra Gupta, serious prejudice has been caused to the
defence to contradict and test the veracity of the first
information report.

¶82

32. The sum and substance of the evidence of PW-1 Vasant Patil ( Exh.9 ) indicates that deceased Ramesh was staying in one of the rooms of his chawl. There are 16 rooms in the chawl. Deceased Ramesh was staying with his wife, nephew and brother-in-law since last 1½ years. At the time of incident, wife of the deceased had gone to her natal place. However, his nephew and brother-in-law were residing with the deceased.

¶83

33. His evidence further indicates that on 22^nd June, 2012 accused Ramesh had been to the house of the deceased Ramesh at about 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. The deceased Ramesh introduced accused Ramesh as his friend. PW-1 Vasant Patil had seen that there was some discussion between accused Ramesh and deceased Ramesh on account

¶84

10 of 20

¶85

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶86

of money. He did not say that there was a quarrel. This is
crucial. Thereafter, he noticed two beds laid down in front
of their house. Around 3.30 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. when PW-1
Vasant Patil was in the gallery of his house, he witnessed
accused Ramesh going towards toilet, which was situated
backside of the chawl. He thought that accused might be
going for attending nature’s call. However, around 5.00 a.m
to 5.30 a.m. he heard shouts of brother-in-law of the
deceased - Ramesh i.e. Ramchandra Gupta - the
complainant. Ramchandra Gupta had seen deceased
Ramesh in an injured condition. PW-1 Vasant Patil had
noticed severe head injuries sustained by deceased Ramesh
and that accused Ramesh was not found over there. This
witness had identified accused Ramesh during the trial in the
Court. Interestingly, he also acted as a panch over the
inquest panchanama, Exh.10.

¶87

34. It is pertinent to note that the complaint Exh.38 lodged by Ramchandra Gupta reveals that he woke up around 4.00 a.m. for urination only to notice deceased Ramesh lying in a pool of blood and the accused Ramesh was missing. Thereafter, he called one Ajay. The prosecution has not examined said Ajay. Thereafter, Ramchandra Gupta, the complainant / first informant went to PW-1 Vasant Patil and told him about the incident. Evidence of PW-1 Vasant Patil and FIR is quite inconsistent. Ramchandra Gupta had stated that he had not witnessed the accused Ramesh. What he had witnessed is only deceased Ramesh lying in the pool of blood

¶88

11 of 20

¶89

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶90

whereas PW-1 Vasant Patil says that he had witnessed the
accused Ramesh but he did not whisper anything about the
deceased Ramesh. If both of them woke up at around 4.00
a.m. how there could be such an inconsistency in their
respective statements. Only inference which can be deduced
is either PW-1 Vasant Patil has falsely testified about
witnessing the accused Ramesh going towards the toilet or
there might be some element of truthfulness in the complaint
of Ramchandra Gupta that he did not notice accused Ramesh
but noticed deceased Ramesh lying in a pool of blood. In
any case, both statements cannot go hand-in-hand. In any
case, the theory of deceased “last seen together” with the
accused Ramesh is quite inconsistent and doubtful and,
therefore, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon
the evidence of PW-1 Vasant Patil.

¶91

35. The evidence of PW-1 Vasant Patil has to be discarded for one more reason. His evidence is to be accepted only with a pinch of salt, for, in his cross-examination he admits that his statement was recorded 1½ months after the incident only when accused Ramesh was arrested on 31^st July, 2012. This assumes significance in light of the fact that if he had already acted as a panch over the inquest panchanam ( Exh.10 ), what prevented the Investigating Officer PW-7 Pradeep Mane from recording his statement immediately after the incident on the spot itself? This speaks volumes and needs no further elaboration that he is a got up witness, otherwise, the Investigating Officer - PW-7 Pradeep Mane could have

¶92

12 of 20

¶93

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶94

promptly recorded his statement.

¶95

36. Another interesting aspect of the case is that as per PW-7 Pradeep Mane, Investigating Officer, the dead body was lying in an open space which was accessible to the general public from various directions. There are chawls surrounding the open space. The spot panchaname Exh.19 substantiate the said fact.

¶96

37. Under such circumstances, the possibility of a third element entering into the scene could not be totally ruled out in the light of the fact that this case is based on circumstantial evidence wherein it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that all the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

¶97

38. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are not inclined to accept that the prosecution has established the first circumstance namely, “last seen together”.

¶98

39. On the aspect as to whether deceased Ramesh was, in fact, working with PW-2 Jitendra Paswan is also something which is difficult to digest. We say so for the following reasons.

¶99

40. It has come in the evidence of PW-2 Jitendra Paswan that it was deceased Ramesh, who had brought accused Ramesh to him recommending his appointment in his company since

¶100

13 of 20

¶101

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶102

they were friends. Accused Ramesh was appointed by PW-2
Jitendra Paswan on the recommendation of deceased
Ramesh. His evidence reveals that accused Ramesh worked
with him only for 5 days and that he allowed him to stay in
the company. He handed over the keys of the company to
the accused Ramesh. He further testified that he used to pay
weekly salary to his workers on every Thursday. According
to him on the day of incident, he had paid Rs.5,000/- to
deceased Ramesh and Rs.2,000/- to accused Ramesh. On
Saturday morning he came to know about the death of
deceased Ramesh. He had identified accused Ramesh during
the trial. This is all about what has been testified by him in
his examination-in-chief. From the evidence of PW-2
Jitendra Paswan and even from the evidence of PW-1 Vasant
Patil, it is difficult to construe that the motive behind
commission of the offence by accused Ramesh was money.

¶103

41. It is not the evidence of PW-2 Jitendra Paswan that he had noticed some quarrel between accused Ramesh and deceased Ramesh on account of money. The fact that he had paid Rs.5,000/- on Thursday has been proved to be an omission. Interestingly, he admits in cross that at the time of appointing accused Ramesh, neither he had obtained his biodata nor has kept any record, which is quite strange. It is doubtful as to whether accused Ramesh was, in fact, appointed by this witness. If he had not paid Rs.5,000/- to deceased Ramesh as his weekly salary, then, the question would arise as to whether he had really paid Rs.2,000/- to

¶104

14 of 20

¶105

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶106

the accused Ramesh. Thus, even the evidence of this
witness does not further the prosecution case any more,
rather, it creates a doubt as to whether the deceased Ramesh,
in fact was a friend of accused Ramesh and had
recommended his appointment.

¶107

42. Thus, the evidence on the aspect of “last seen together” is obviously unsatisfactory, unbelievable and that the trial Court erred in ignoring the aforesaid material inconsistencies and lacunae while appreciating the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses.

¶108

43. Now turning to the important aspect of discovery of the weapon of offence i.e. a stone and the clothes on the person of the accused Ramesh at the time of incident. PW-4 Narendra Patil is a panch on the memorandum panchanama of the accused Ramesh, who had also acted as a panch to the scene of occurrence. He testified that on the day of incident, he was present on the spot and, therefore, was asked by the police to act as a panch witness. There were stones in front of the house of PW-1 Vasant Patil. He testified that there were mat, towel and bed-sheet stained with blood. Those articles were packed and sealed in his presence. The soil stained with blood was also seized. A panchanama was drawn which is proved at Exh.19 . He had identified those articles in the Court.

¶109

44. It is pertinent to note that the incident in question occurred

¶110

15 of 20

¶111

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶112

on 23rd June, 2012 and this witness was summoned by the
police again on 1st August, 2012 at the police station
directing him to listen the statement of the accused Ramesh.
He testified that accused Ramesh had stated before the police
as to how the offence had been committed by him which was
reduced into writing and is proved at Exh.20. Thereafter, he
accompanied the police staff along with accused Ramesh in a
police vehicle and they proceeded in the direction as given
by the accused Ramesh.

¶113

45. They reached near a tamarind tree. Accused Ramesh pointed towards a stone which was kept near tamarind tree. It was sealed by the police in his presence under a panchanama, which is at Exh.21 . The learned Counsel for the accused Ramesh made an attempt to rebut the testimony of this witness in cross by giving usual suggestion that whatever he has testified is not correct. However, certain important facts have been surfaced in his cross-examination.

¶114

46. First of all, he admits that place from where the stone was pointed out by accused Ramesh was an open place and there were no bushes around that place. Where the recovery was made is an open place accessible to all, in such an eventuality, exclusive knowledge of that stone could not be attributable to accused Ramesh alone. The secrete of it must have been known only to the person who had used the place to that purpose. Thus, it was not the exclusive knowledge of accused Ramesh and, therefore, this

¶115

16 of 20

¶116

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶117

circumstance also is not helpful to the prosecution in linking
the accused Ramesh with the murder of the deceased
Ramesh.

¶118

47. This admission is sufficient to disbelieve the alleged discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It connotes that a concocted story has been engineered by the prosecution.

¶119

48. There are two essential requirements for the application of Section 27. They are (i) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence; and (ii) he must be in police custody. This provision is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of an information given, some guaranteeis afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of any such article or instrument of crime.

¶120

49. The first thing is that finding of the stone in an open place itself falsifies that it is a discovery of fact as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There were several stones and, therefore, it cannot be conclusively said that it was the same stone by which the accused Ramesh alleged to have killed the deceased Ramesh. It could not be said to be a fact discovered pursuant to what had been deposed to by accused Ramesh while in police custody. It is doubtful as to

¶121

17 of 20

¶122

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶123

whether the same stone was the weapon of offence used to
commit the murder of deceased Ramesh. It is for the simple
reason that the C.A. reort Exh.54qua the stone and even the
pant and shirt of the accused Ramesh indicate that though it
were stained with human blood, the ABO grouping has been
inconclusive. The incident occurred some where in the
month of June, 2012 which is admittedly a season of
mansoon. The alleged discovery was made in the month of
August, 2012. It is quite difficult to believe that despite
such a long period, blood stains could be noticed over the
said articles.

¶124

50. As regards abscondence of accused Ramesh after the incident in question, what has been testified by PW-7 Pradeep Mane - Investigating Officer is that he could be nabbed from the State of Gujarat by API Wakode on 31^st July, 2012. The prosecution has not examined API Wakode to substantiate its contention that, in fact, the accused Ramesh was absconding and was arrested from Gujarat. Merely because he was absconding, does not ipso facto mean that he was the author of vital injuries on the person of deceased Ramesh in light of the discussion made hereinabove.

¶125

51. There is one more unsolved mystery in this case as to how PW-7 Pradeep Mane could identify accused Ramesh for the simple reason that neither complainant - Ramchandra Gupta nor the nephew of the deceased could be traced in order to identify accused Ramesh. The evidence of PW-2 Jitendra

¶126

18 of 20

¶127

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶128

Paswan, PW-1 Vasant Patil and PW-4 Narendra Patil does not
inspire confidence for the reasons as already stated
hereinabove. Nobody knew even the full name of accused
Ramesh till he was arrested by the police. Even PW-7
Pradeep Mane admits in his cross that he had no clue about
the accused Ramesh except his first name. Interestingly, he
even could not recollect as to from whom and where he
gathered about the full name of the accused Ramesh. He
had not recorded the statement of that person from whom he
gathered the name of the accused Ramesh till he was
arrested. He did not possess any photograph of the accused
Ramesh. What has been testified by PW-7 Pradeep Mane,
afterwards, is that one Farid Baloch had informed him about
the name of the accused Ramesh. However, no such person
by name Farid Baloch has been brought before the Court to
substantiate the said fact. As such, abscondence of accused
Ramesh would not be an additional link as sought to be
argued by the learned APP before the trial Court. In fact,
there is no chain at all in this case.

¶129

52. The impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures without appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective on the touch stone of law of evidence.

¶130

53. To sum up, the prosecution has failed to establish the complicity and nexus of the accused Ramesh in connection with the homicidal death of deceased Ramesh. It is needless to reiterate that there is no chain of circumstances pointing

¶131

19 of 20

¶132

221-16-Apeal-J=.doc

¶133

towards the guilt of the accused Ramesh and, therefore, the
impugned judgment needs to be quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the following order is passed :-

¶134

ORDER

¶135

i) Appeal is allowed.

¶136

(ii)The judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions
Case No. 20 of 2013 on 18th August, 2015 is quashed and set
aside and the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶137

(iii) He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.

¶138

(iv)Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him.

¶139

(v)The order as regards disposal of muddemal is
maintained.

¶140

(vi)The appeal stands disposed of.

¶141

(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

¶142

20 of 20

Ramesh @ Chhotu Ramchandra Prajapati v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh @ Chhotu Ramchandra Prajapati v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandlal Harinath Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Thakur Singh @ Bhutta Singh @ Brijbhushan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raghunath Machhindra Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shelkya Jhurkya Pawar. Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Shankar Sayaji Handore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shelkya Jhurkya Pawar. Vs the State of Maharashtra .