Allowed

Ram S/O Baban Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Sept 2023APEAL/88/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay (Bench at Aurangabad) allowed criminal appeal and acquitted appellants convicted of murder. Court held circumstantial evidence regarding motive, last seen theory, and recovery of money was insufficient. Extra-judicial confession recorded without magistrate violated Evidence Act and was inadmissible.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentencing under IPC Sections 302/120B/201 quashed; appellants acquitted and set at liberty.

Ram S/O Baban Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AUG:20518-DB

¶2

{1} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88 OF 2017

¶6

1]Ram s/o. Baban Shinde
Age: 26 years, Occu.: Mobile Shop,
R/o. Village Warudi, Tq. Banapur,
District Jalna.

¶7

2]Satish alias Khandya s/o Kashinath
Bhalekar
Age: 26 years, Ocu. and
R/o. As above. ..Appellants
(Orig. Accused Nos.1 & 2)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

. The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station, Gangapur, Taluka, Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad. ..Respondent

¶10

Mr.Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Appellants
Mr.S.J.Salgare, APP for Respondent

¶11

…
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶12

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 8 SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶14

JUDGMENT (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :

¶15

1. Appellants – Ram Baban Shinde and Satish alias Khandya

¶16

Kashinath Bhalekar, who are convicted by the learned Additional

¶17

Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.57 of 2014 are hereby

¶18

taking exception to the Judgment and order passed on 20-01-2017

¶19

holding both of them guilty for offence under Sections 302 r/w 120B,

¶20

{2} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶21

201 r/w 120B and individually 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶22

BRIEF CASE OF PROSECUTION

¶23

2.Prosecution has come with a case that deceased and accused
are common friends of each other. Prior to the incident in question,
deceased had extended hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to accused Ram
as he was in dire needs of funds. It was agreed that accused Ram
would repay the amount on a particular day and therefore, on the
said day, deceased Ramesh put up demand. To avoid repayment, it is
the case of prosecution, that accused no.1 Ram hatched conspiracy
with accused no.2 Satish and took deceased towards spot. He was
assaulted by means of iron rod and thereafter, to cause disappearance
of the evidence, his dead body was thrown down the bridge.

¶24

On receipt of information, Police had paid visit to the spot.
Even accused Ram visited the spot and some enquiry was made with
him by the Investigating Officer, but he was found to be giving
incomplete information and evasive answers and therefore, on
further interrogation, accused Ram confessed about hatching
conspiracy with accused no.2 Satish and committed murder of
deceased Ramesh. Therefore, on receipt of such extra judicial
confession, crime was registered and after its completion, accused

¶25

{3} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶26

were chargesheeted.

¶27

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, who was seized
with matter, initially framed charge and on its denial, permitted
prosecution to lead evidence during which prosecution has lead
evidence of as many as fourteen witnesses and also relied on
documentary evidence. After hearing both the sides and after going
through the evidence of both the sides, learned trial Judge has
reached to a finding that the charge is proved and thereby by its
judgment and order dated 21-01-2017 sentenced both the appellants
for above charge to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine.

¶28

Above judgment is now assailed before us in appeal.

¶29

SUBMISSIONS

¶30

On behalf of appellants :

¶31

3.On behalf of the appellants, leaned Counsel pointed out that
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges as there is
no direct evidence or incriminating circumstances in support of the
case of prosecution. He pointed out that there is no evidence on the
point of motive. He pointed out that there is no evidence to show
that accused and deceased were in each others company to apply
theory of last seen together. He pointed out that alleged extra

¶32

{4} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶33

judicial confession, which is given to a Police Officer, is hit by
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, learned
trial Court ought not to have accepted the case of prosecution. He
took us through the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses
and submitted that their testimonies are not inspiring confidence and
they are not lending support to each other. That there is no evidence
about so called loan transaction and therefore, it is his submission
that with such weak evidence, case of prosecution ought to have
discarded, however, learned trial Judge, having failed to do the same,
he prays to allow the appeal.

¶34

On behalf of State :

¶35

4.Per contra, learned APP for the respondent State pointed out
that there is no dispute that accused persons and deceased were
friends. Deceased had lent money on demand raised by accused
Ram, but when it was demanded back by way of re-payment, out of
annoyance and to avoid its repayment, both accused took deceased
from his house. Mother and wife of deceased have deposed about
accused being taken deceased out of house. Thereafter, deceased did
not return alive and was rather found dead having met homicidal
death. That moreover, accused Ram had already given extra judicial

¶36

{5} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶37

confession about committing offence. There is forensic evidence.
Therefore, taking such evidence into consideration, learned trial
Court has committed no error for accepting the case of prosecution
and according to him, there is no merit in the appeal and he prays to
dismiss the same.

¶38

5.This being first appellate Court and last fact finding Court, is
required to undertake the exercise of re-analyzing, re-appreciating
and re-evaluating entire evidence adduced by prosecution in the trial
Court.

¶39

On doing so, we have noticed that in support of its case,
prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses and their status and
role are as under:

¶40

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

¶41

PW1 Babasaheb Laxman Waysal is Pancha to spot panchanama. His
evidence is at Exh.20. Spot panchanama is at Exh.21.

¶42

PW2 Subhash Narayan Shinde is cousin brother of deceased. His
evidence is at Exh.29.

¶43

PW3 Suvarna Ramesh Shinde is wife of deceased. Her evidence is at
Exh.30.

¶44

{6} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶45

PW4 Nandabai Kalyan Shinde is mother of deceased. Her evidence is
at Exh.31.

¶46

PW5 Udhav Dhondiram Shinde is cousin brother of deceased. His
evidence is at Exh.36.

¶47

PW6 Radhakisan Atmaram Shinde is Sarpanch of village Warudi. His
evidence is at Exh.37.

¶48

PW7 Vithal Bhausaheb Shinde is a villager, and friend of cousin
brother of deceased. His evidence is at Exh.38.

¶49

PW8 Ram Narayan Shirsath is a villager. His evidence is at Exh.40.

¶50

PW9 Babasaheb Gamaji Shinde is Pancha to seizure of clothes of
accused and amount. His evidence is at Exh.41. Seizure
panchanamas are at Exh.42 and 43.

¶51

PW10 Dr.Rupali Vishwnath Utikar is Autopsy Doctor. Her evidence is
at Exh.46. Post mortem report is at Exh.47.

¶52

PW11 Arun Rangnath Dhopte is Pancha to seizure of clothes of
accused Ram Shinde. His evidence is at Exh.52. Seizure panchanama
is at Exh.53-B.

¶53

PW12 Balkrushna Kondiram Gaikwad is Police Patil of Kaigaon. His
evidence is at Exh.64.

¶54

{7} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶55

PW13 Raju Tejrao Bhise is villager of Warudi. His evidence is at
Exh.65.

¶56

PW14 Aniruddha Shyamkumar Nandedkar (PI) is Investigating
Officer. His evidence is at Exh.75.

¶57

6.In the light of charge under Section 302 of the IPC, it is
necessary to see whether in the trial Court, prosecution has
established death of Ramesh Shinde to be homicidal one. To get
satisfied to that extent, we have visited evidence of PW10 Dr.Utikar,
medico legal expert, who conducted post mortem and who in her
evidence at Exh.46 testified and narrated the surface wounds noticed
by her on the person of deceased Ramesh, which are as under:

¶58

1. Lacerated wound at left rign finger 3 x 2 cm. fracture proximal phalynx.

¶59

2. Lacerated wound at left elbow joint 2 x 2 cm.

¶60

3. Lacerated wound left wrist joint 1 x 1 cm.

¶61

4. Abrasion left knee joint 2 x 1 cm.

¶62

5. Abrasion right knee joint 3 x 2 cm.

¶63

6. Abrasion right iliac crest 1 x 1 cm.

¶64

7. Abrasion right forearm dorsal aspect 5 cxm x 2 cm.

¶65

8. Lacerated wound above right eye 4 x 4 cm with underline fracture of frontal bone.

¶66

{8} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶67

9. Lacerated wound just above left eye 3 x 2 cm. with underline fracture of frontal bone.

¶68

10. Lacerated wound left lateral side of nose 4 x 3

¶69

cm. with fracture of nasal bone.

¶70

11. Lacerated wound left ear 4 x 1 cm.

¶71

12. Lacerated wound left occipital region 6 x 5 cm. with underline fracture of occipital bone.

¶72

13. Crush injury complete fracture of right and left temporal bone, frontal bone, occipital bone with brain matter expelled out of the skull.

¶73

7.According to PW10 Dr.Utikar, Autopsy Doctor, deceased
Ramesh died due to head injury. She has identified post mortem
report authored by her and according to her, injury no.13 which is a
crush injury, is possible if a person is thrown from bridge whereas
injury nos.8 to 13 to be possible by iron rod and the injuries are
sufficient to cause dead.

¶74

Above witness is subjected to a very short cross-examination
wherein she has answered that injuries are also possible by stone or
stick and if a person falls from bridge on hard and blunt object, injury
no.13 is possible.

¶75

On analyzing above evidence, there are as many as eight
lacerated wounds on various parts including right eye, frontal bone,
occipital region and rest are abrasions. Above nature of injures on

¶76

{9} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶77

distinct parts of body, in our considered opinion, are not possible on
account of a single fall. Autopsy Doctor has opined that the injuries
are sufficient to cause death and there is no effective cross of the
Autopsy Doctor about the same. Therefore, there is no serious
dispute regarding mode of death. Even in appeal, learned Counsel
for appellants has not disputed mode and manner of death. Autopsy
Doctor has further admitted that injuries are possible by use of iron
pipe, which was apparently found lying near the dead body. Taking
all circumstances into consideration, there is no hesitation to hold the
death not only unnatural but even homicidal one.

¶78

8. Now let us see whether case of prosecution, as put forth by learned Counsel for the appellants, is not worthy of credence.

¶79

ANALYSIS

¶80

9. Indictment of both accused is on the accusation that they and

¶81

deceased Ramesh are close friends. Accused no.1 Ram was in dire
need of funds. Shortly before the incident, deceased had sold
agriculture land and was possessing sale proceeds. Accused no.1
Ram borrowed hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from deceased on
assurance to repay the same in fifteen days. Deceased extended the

¶82

{10} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶83

hand loan and on due date demanded the repayment. Specific
accusation of prosecution is that, getting annoyed by the demand and
to avoid repayment, he hatched conspiracy with accused no.2 Satish
and accordingly, on 02-04-2014, took deceased along with them from
his house and thereafter, he was done to death by assaulting him
with iron pipe and his body was thrown and dumped beneath a
bridge. Hence, the charge.

¶84

10.In support of above case, prosecution has relied on above
witnesses. Their being no direct evidence, case is obviously based on
circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which seem to be
pressed into service could be summarized as under :

¶85

(I) Motive – Avoidance of repayment of loan. (II) Deceased taken from his house and both accused were last seen in the company of deceased.

¶86

(III)Extra-judicial confession.

¶87

(IV)Recovery of borrowed amount at the instance of accused.

¶88

11.Before testing the compatibility of above circumstances, we
wish to give a brief account of the settled legal position regarding
manner of appreciation of a case, which is based on circumstantial
evidence.

¶89

Law with regard to conviction in case of circumstantial

¶90

{11} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶91

evidence is fairly settled by numerous judicial pronouncements since
the case of Hanumant Govind Nirgudkar v. State of M.P.; AIR 1952
SC343 and Sharad B. Sarada v. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1984 SC
1622. Recently, in the case of Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v. State of
Punjab [2023 SCC OnLine 811], the conditions which are required to
be fulfilled for returning guilt in a case based on circumstantial
evidence are given in paragraph no.16, which could be summarized
as under :

¶92

“…… (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶93

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be
proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)
1033 : 1973 Cri LJ 1783] where the observations were made :
[SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

¶94

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

¶95

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that

¶96

{12} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶97

the accused is guilty,

¶98

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,

¶99

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and

¶100

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”

¶101

It is thus settled that circumstances from which conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully and firmly established beyond
reasonable doubt.

¶102

FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE

¶103

12.Taking the case of prosecution into consideration, let us see
whether motive is at the outset established. As case being based on
circumstantial evidence, it is imperative on the part of the
prosecution to establish motive.

¶104

In support of borrowing of hand loan, prosecution seems to be
relying on evidence of PW3 Suvarna, wife of deceased and PW4
Nandabai, mother of deceased, as they are the only persons who are

¶105

{13} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶106

aware about it. On visiting evidence of PW3 Suvarna, we find her
deposing that they had one acre land and they had sold half acre
land for Rs.7,00,000/-. Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited in the account
of her husband. After one and half month, her husband had given
hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to accused no.1 for a period of fifteen
days. On the end of the term, when amount was demanded, he
avoided the same and took her husband on 02-04-2014 and
thereafter, her husband did not return alive.

¶107

Similarly, PW4 Nandabai is found to be testifying in her
evidence at Exh.31 that accused and her son were friends. They had
sold half acre of land and out of its consideration, Rs.3,00,000/- were
in the account of Ramesh. Accused no.1 had taken Rs.1,50,000/-
from her son by assuring to repay within 15 days. When her son
demanded, accused no.1 did not repay it and took her son at 06:00
p.m. and directly she saw dead body of her son being brought to the
village.

¶108

13.In cross-examination, PW2 Suvarna, wife of deceased
answered that she knew the bank transactions of her husband and
that after depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, what amount had been
withdrawn by her husband, but she is unable to give detail about it.

¶109

{14} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶110

PW4 Nandabai, mother of deceased, on being questioned to this
extent, in cross-examination answered that she is unable to give
detail of the date and month of depositing amount in the bank in
name of deceased son and she is unable to tell when her son had
withdrawn amount from the bank.

¶111

PW14 Nandedkar (PI), Investigating Officer, has also not
gathered any documents / bank record regarding deposit of
Rs.7,00,000/-, withdrawal of Rs.3,00,000/- and details of currency.
Consequently, there is no iota of evidence, except oral version of wife
and mother of deceased, regarding hand loan taken by accused no.1
or about assurance of its repayment by accused no.1. There is
nothing in black and white regarding so called agreement between
accused no.1 and deceased. PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Officer,
also does not seem to have bothered to investigate and collect the so
called sale transaction of land by deceased. Resultantly, there is no
evidence on the point of motive, which is attributed by the
prosecution that to avoid repayment of hand loan, deceased was
done to death.

¶112

SECOND CIRCUMSTANCE

¶113

14. Allegations on behalf of prosecution are that on account of

¶114

{15} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶115

demand of repayment, accused no.1 got annoyed and therefore, he
conspired with accused no.2 and to do away with deceased, he was
taken away from his house and murdered by use of iron pipe.

¶116

It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no evidence on
behalf of prosecution in support of so called conspiracy being
hatched by both accused persons. So called borrowing of loan was
obviously by accused no.1 and not by accused no.2. The question
that arises is that then why at all for no reason, accused no.2 would
join hands with accused no.1. Be it so, there is no evidence as to
when the conspiracy was hatched, where they met, where there was
meeting of minds for hatching conspiracy. The very essentials for
invoking Section 120B of the IPC are patently missing from the entire
prosecution evidence.

¶117

15.PW3 Suvarna, wife of deceased and PW4 Nandabai, mother of
deceased are again relevant witnesses on the point of deceased being
taken by accused and accused to be the last persons in the company
of deceased.

¶118

On carefully going through the evidence of PW3 Suvarna and
PW4 Nandabai, it is emerging that they both speak about deceased
returning home from company at around 06:00 p.m. on 02-04-2014.

¶119

{16} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶120

PW3 Suvarna speaks about only accused no.1 Ram coming and
taking her husband outside. Even PW4 Nandabai, deposed and
named only accused no.1 Ram to be coming to their house and
taking deceased. Thus they both are not uttering or naming accused
no.2 also to be with accused no.1. They both are silent by what
mode deceased was taken by accused. Deceased left the house at
around 06:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. on 02-04-2014.

¶121

PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Officer, who lodged complaint,
has received information on 03-4-2014 at around 09:10 a.m. about
dead body lying beneath the bridge over Godavari river at Kaygaon.
Therefore, since after almost 15 hours of deceased leaving the house,
dead body is detected. According to PW10 Dr.Utikar, Autopsy Doctor,
“deceased might have consumed his last meal more than 6 hours
before his death”. Thus PW10 Dr.Utikar, Autopsy Doctor, in her
substantive evidence, has not been asked as to atleast by
approximation, how many hours prior to the post mortem, death
might have occurred nor defence has bothered to question Autopsy
Doctor on the point of time since death.

¶122

It is fairly settled that when theory of last seen together is
attributed, it is necessary for prosecution to quote exact or atleast by
approximation time since death. Here above discussed material is

¶123

{17} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶124

missing this crucial aspect. PW3 Suvarna and PW4 Nandabai speak
about deceased leaving house at 06:00 p.m. Where the meal was
taken in the night is not clear. Therefore, in the light of such material
on record, time gap or the proximity of time between accused last
seen in the company of deceased being enormous, it is not open for
prosecution to apply the said theory. Resultantly, even this
circumstance fails.

¶125

THIRD CIRCUMSTANCE

¶126

16.Learned Counsel for appellants would strenuously questioned
consideration of extra-judicial confession by the trial Court for
recording the guilt. According to him, apparently very evidence of
prosecution itself shows that accused, when was present at the spot,
was enquired by Investigating Officer and since then he was under
surveillance and custody of the Police. Therefore, any information
given under such circumstances is apparently hit by section 25 and
26 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, it is banned from
consideration. On this count, he invited our attention to evidence of
PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Officer. He pointed out that alleged
extra-judicial confession is after a gap of almost two days and it is so
evident from the very evidence of prosecution witness. For the above
reasons, it is his submission that such circumstances ought to have

¶127

{18} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶128

kept out of purview and consideration by trial Court and that has not
been done and so he finds fault in the judgment under challenge.

¶129

In the light of above objection, we have visited the prosecution
evidence, more particularly, PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Officer,
who deposed at Exh.75 that on behalf of State, he has set law into
motion vide report Exh.76. He claims that from the persons gathered
from the spot, he came to know that deceased went alongwith
accused Ram and Satish towards Shirdi. He claims that he also
learnt that accused Ram was also present at the spot and therefore,
he took him in custody for enquiry, deposited Muddemal in Police
Station and when according to him, Ram was not cooperating and
giving evasive answers, on next day he arrested him. In paragraph 1
itself he stated that in enquiry with the accused he admitted the
crime stating that he obtained Rs.1,50,000/- from deceased and
deceased was insisting for repayment, therefore, alonwith accused
no.2 Satish he committed the murder. Further accused no.1 gave
disclosure and his clothes were recovered at his instance.

¶130

While under cross, PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Offier has
admitted that on 03-04-2014, he has not recorded statements of
anyone from village Warudi. That he did not seek CDR of mobile of
deceased. That he recorded statements of witnesses on 06-04-2014.

¶131

{19} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶132

He admitted that he did not try to get confessional statements
recorded through Magistrate.

¶133

Now let us visit the testimony of other witnesses. PW2
Subhash, cousin of deceased deposed that on 06-04-2014, Police
brought accused Ram in the village and that time he admitted the
crime. In paragraph 5 of cross-examination, he stated that
immediately at arrival of accused Ram, Police suspected him and
took him in custody. On 06-04-2014 in the evening he was brought to
the village in the handcuffed condition.

¶134

PW3 Suvarna, wife of deceased while under cross-examination
stated that after dead body was brought in the village, Radhakisan,
Ram and Uddhav met her and she learnt about incident from them.
It is pertinent to note that this witness does not speak about accused
Ram being brought by Police on the evening of 06-04-2014 as
narrated by PW2 Subhash . Similarly, PW5 Uddhav, who is also a
cousin of deceased, has not stated anything about any extra-judicial
confession given by accused. PW6 Radhakisan, Sarpanch of the
village also deposed that on 06-04-2014 in his presence accused Ram
told that due to money he murdered Ramesh. PW8 Shirsath deposed
that accused Ram came near the spot and Police enquired him
whether the vehicle belongs to him and appellant answered that

¶135

{20} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶136

deceased had taken his vehicle but he knew nothing further. This
witness also stated that at the bridge appellant Ram was taken in
custody and enquiry was made with him and at that time, he told
that due to money said incident has happened.

¶137

17.On carefully sifting the above testimonies, it appears that,
according to PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Officer, accused was
taken in the custody on 03-04-2014 and on next day he confessed
about committing crime, whereas remaining witnesses, whose
evidence is dealt and discussed above, are giving contrary statements
that accused Ram confessed about committing the murder, during
enquriy at the spot in their presence. Either ways so called extra-
judicial confession is apparently in presence of Investigating Officer,
who had allegedly taken him in the custody from the very spot itself
as a suspect. PW14 Nandedkar, Investigating Officer has deposed
that after gathering Muddemal on the same day, accused was taken
in the custody and on next day accused confessed. Therefore, here is
a confession to the Police Officer at Police Station. PW14 Nandedkar,
Investigating Officer has admitted that no efforts were done to take
the appellant before the Magistrate to get confession recorded.
Therefore, the so called extra-judicial confession is apparently hit by

¶138

{21} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶139

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and has no
evidentiary value. Even though prosecution claims that there was
extra-judicial confession to persons present at the spot, their
statements to that extent are not recorded promptly and apparently
recorded after inordinate delay. This further contributes to credibility
of the evidence on above circumstance. Therefore, said extra-judicial
confession cannot be considered and act upon.

¶140

FOURTH CIRCUMSTANCE

¶141

18.Prosecution claims that while in custody, accused no.1 gave
disclosure and took Pancha and Police to house of his brother namely
Shyam and from there the currency taken by appellant Ram by way
of hand loan was seized. It is the case of prosecution that
Rs.1,50,000/- were borrowed, however, only Rs.1,00,000/- is shown
to be recovered that too at the instance of brother of appellant Ram
and not appellant Ram himself. Brother of appellant namely Shyam
has allegedly handed over the currency and thereafter it was seized.
Question arises how said handing over and seizure of money at the
instance of brother of accused no.1 could be taken aid of to implicate
accused Ram. PW14 Nandedkar, has admitted that he has not
recorded statement of Shyam and even no receipt has been drawn
regarding seizure of cash. There is no evidence to show that the

¶142

{22} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶143

currency seized was the same currency, which was borrowed from
deceased by accused no.1 and that was resultantly seized. Therefore,
even so called circumstance of recovery of money comes under
shadow of doubt and cannot be relied upon.

¶144

CONCLUSION

¶145

19.The sum total of the above discussion, on the basis of critical
analysis and re-appreciation of evidence, is that none of the
circumstances put forth by prosecution are firmly and cogently
proved so as to accept the case of prosecution. Motive is not
forthcoming from the evidence. Secondly, theory of last seen
together has apparently failed for reasons discussed in aforesaid
paragraph. So called extra-judicial confession is not voluntary being
given to Police Officer and lastly, recovery of money is not shown to
be the same money, which is allegedly lent by deceased.

¶146

20.We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment, it is
surprising to find that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence of prosecution as required by law while accepting the case
of prosecution. Inspite of so called extra-judicial confession being
given to the Investigating Officer, the same has been considered and
accepted by the trial Judge. Resultantly, finding it a fit case for

¶147

{23} CRI APPEAL 88 OF 2017

¶148

interference, appellants succeed and we accordingly proceed to pass
the following order.

¶149

ORDER

¶150

(I) Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

¶151

(II)Conviction awarded to appellant no.1 - Ram s/o Baban
Shinde and appellant no.2 - Satish alias Khandya s/o Kashinath
Bhalekar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur,
District Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.57 of 2014 on
20-01-2017, after holding them guilty of committing offence
under Sections 302 r/w 120B, 201 r/w 120B and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside.

¶152

(III)The appellants stand acquitted of the offence punishable
under Sections 302 r/w 120B, 201 r/w 120B and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶153

(IV) The appellants be set at liberty, if not required in any
other case.

¶154

(V)Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to them after
the statutory period is over.

¶155

(VI)We clarify that there is no change in the order passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District
Aurangabad regarding disposal of Muddemal.

¶156

 ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGEJUDGE
SPT

Ram S/O Baban Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram S/O Baban Shinde and Anr. 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

Bapurao Khandu Navsare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Samir Shaikh Vali Mohmmad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maroti S/O. Mariba Gujalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dyandev Trimbak Ukirde

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Vs Nagraj Panchakshari Swami and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Vs Prakash Shamrao Mane and Ors.