Harichandra @ Hari Motiram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

9-IA-927-2020.doc

1 / 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 927 OF 2020
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2020

¶6

Harichandra @ Hari Motiram Pawar

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Mr.Nitin Sejpal for Applicant/Appellant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for Respondent/state.

¶12

Digitally signed by DNYANESHWARASHOK ETHAPE DNYANESHWARASHOK ETHAPEDate: 2022.03.22 17:39:30 +0530

¶13

 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
 SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 21st MARCH, 2022.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking relief of releasing

¶17

him on bail during the pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal
No.295 of 2020.

¶18

2.Heard Mr. Nitin Sejpal, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant and Ms. Veera Shinde, the learned APP for State.

¶19

3.The applicant, who was the original accused No.2 in Sessions
Case No. 29 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik, was
convicted by Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2020 for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced

¶20

Dnyaneshwar Ethape, PA

¶21

9-IA-927-2020.doc

¶22

2 / 6

¶23

to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand Only), in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years.
The applicant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
120(B)(1) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer Life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only), in
default to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for Two years. All the Sentences
were directed to run concurrently.

¶24

4.Apart from the applicant, there was another accused No.1
Rajendra Shankar Raut, who was convicted and sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B)
(1) of the IPC. In addition, the accused No.1 was also convicted for the
offence under section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for the period of Three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rs. Five Thousand Only), in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six
Months.

¶25

5.The prosecution case is that, the deceased Priyanka was
married to accused No.1-Rajendra Raut on 29.05.2013. After couple of days
of marriage, the accused No.1 started suspecting her character and started
beating her and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. He had also
threatened to kill her.

¶26

Dnyaneshwar Ethape, PA

¶27

9-IA-927-2020.doc

¶28

3 / 6

¶29

6.On 22.10.2013, the accused No.1 Rajendra and Priyanka
(deceased) had gone to Nashik for Diwali Shopping. At around 8.30 pm the
deceased informed her mother that, they were going back to their home at
Surgana. At around 1.30 in the midnight the accused No.1’s brother Atul
informed mother of the deceased that Rajendra and Priyanka were assaulted
by unknown persons near Chirai Ghat on their way home. The police also
informed the mother of deceased that her daughter Priyanka died due to
stab injuries and her husband also sustained minor injuries.

¶30

7.It is further the case of the prosecution that, according to the
medical officer the cause of death was due to stab injuries. Deceased
Priyanka had suffered as many of 6 injuries. Accused No.1 had suffered
only simple superficial injury. Priyanka had suffered CLW over left ear lobe,
CLW over right ear lobe; abrasion over right side of chin, five incised injury
over abdomen, and contusion over left upper chest. She died because of
these injuries. According to the prosecution the death of Priyanka was
homicidal. It is argued that the accused No.1 with the help of present
applicant planned to commit the murder of his wife Priyanka and to inflict
superficial injuries on his own person so as to make it appear as a case of
robbery. Accordingly he executed this plan.

¶31

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He
submits that there is absolutely no evidence against the Applicant. There

¶32

Dnyaneshwar Ethape, PA

¶33

9-IA-927-2020.doc

¶34

4 / 6

¶35

was no motive for the Applicant to commit murder of the deceased. Only
evidence against him is of recovery of knife and ornaments at his instance.
However, that recovery itself is suspicious, because, on the same day i.e. on
25/10/2013, the accused no.1 had also shown his willingness to take out of
those articles. They were not found from the place shown by Accused No.1.
Immediately on the same day, the applicant’s statement was recorded
leading to recovery of those articles. He submits that the ornaments were
not identified by any relative of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the present Applicant is connected with the crime. Mr. Sejpal submits
that during investigation the applicant was in custody for about one and half
year and after conviction in February 2020, he is in custody for about three
and half years.

¶36

9.Learned APP vehemently opposed this application on the
ground that there was recovery of knife which was stained with blood
having blood group of the deceased as also there was recovery of ornaments
at the instance of the applicant. She submitted that there is sufficient
evidence against the Applicant, and therefore, this application may be
rejected.

¶37

10.We have considered the submissions as well as the evidence on
record. The only evidence against the present applicant is about the
recovery of the gold ornaments and the knife. The ornaments are not

¶38

Dnyaneshwar Ethape, PA

¶39

9-IA-927-2020.doc

¶40

5 / 6

¶41

identified by anybody as those belonging to the deceased. In so far as
recovery of knife and ornaments is concerned, on the very same day i.e. on
25.10.2013 the accused No.1 showed his willingness to show the place
where he along with applicant had thrown the knife and ornaments. Mr.
Sejpal has tendered across the bar the copies of Panchnamas recorded on
25/10/2013. The same are taken on record and mark ‘X’ collectively for
identification.

¶42

11.It appears that, Accused No.1 in his statement before the police
had stated that he was ready and willing to show the place where, after
committing murder of Priyanka, they had thrown the knife and the
ornaments. Therefore, police along with panchas took him to that place,
however, nothing could be found by the police from that place.

¶43

12.Thereafter, on the same day i.e. on 25/10/2013, the police
recorded the statement of the present Applicant wherein he has stated that
he was ready and willing to show the place where he and his friend Praksh
alias Bala Damodar Bagul had concealed the knife and ornaments. It was a
joint concealment. Accordingly police along with panchas took the applicant
to the said place from where they found the knife and ornaments. It
appears that the same persons, who acted as Panchas at the time of
recording of statement of Accused No.1, had acted as the panchas on
memorandum of panchanama of recovery of knife and ornaments at the

¶44

Dnyaneshwar Ethape, PA

¶45

9-IA-927-2020.doc

¶46

6 / 6

¶47

instance of Applicant. There is no evidence as regards identification of the
ornaments. As per the prosecution case, the role attributed to the present
Applicant is of concealing of the knife purportedly used in the crime and the
ornaments on the person of the deceased. The evidence against the
applicant is weak and doubtful. However, it will have to be tested at the
final hearing.

¶48

13.Considering this discussion, the Applicant – Accused No.2 is
entitled for bail. Hence the following order.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i)Interim Application No.927 of 2020 is allowed.

¶51

(ii)During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No. 295 of 2020, Applicant-Harichandra @ Hari
Motiram Pawar is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs.
Thirty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶52

(iii)The Applicant shall not misuse the liberty
granted to him.

¶53

(iv)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶54

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶55

Dnyaneshwar Ethape, PA

Harichandra @ Hari Motiram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harichandra @ Hari Motiram Pawar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Madanlal Karwa and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shyam Jivan Medhkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Khan Alias Vasim Azgar Nehal Azgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohsin Mobin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi Vs the Union of India and Anr.