Bombay High Court

RAKESH RAMESH NAUKUDKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 3 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.

Summary

The appellant, Rakesh Ramesh Naukudkar, appealed against his conviction for murder (IPC s.302) and abetment of suicide (IPC s.201) based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged motive stemming from an extramarital affair, a handkerchief with blood of a different group, purchase of a wire, and phone call records, but the High Court found these insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted inconsistencies in the FIR, identification of the wire, and the admissibility of statements made in police custody. It held that the chain of circumstances did not unerringly point to the appellant’s guilt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the trial judgment set aside, and the appellant acquitted of all charges.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence
Whether motive derived from an extramarital affair establishes culpability
Whether the handkerchief bearing blood of AB group implicates the appellant
Admissibility of statements made by the appellant while in police custody
Reliability of identification of the wire purchased by the appellant
Whether the call data records establish a link between the appellant and the alleged paramour

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Act — s. 481
Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313, 428
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65B
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302

Subjects

murder
IPC 302
IPC 201
circumstantial evidence
acquittal
criminal appeal
handkerchief blood
wire purchase
phone call data records
confession inadmissibility

Judgment

1 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023
Sagar Magar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2023

Rakesh Ramesh Naukudkar … Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent
__________
Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Ms. Pooja Sejpal, Ms. Akshata Desai, Mr. Sahir
Patel for Appellant.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the Respondent-State.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026
PC :

1) This matter has been placed for speaking to the minutes to

correct the date of the judgment. The Judgment was dictated in the

open court on 2nd September 2026 and 3rd September 2026. It was

completed on 3rd September 2026. Therefore, the date of the judgment

is required to be mentioned as 3rd September 2026.

2) Accordingly, the correction be made in the judgment, and

in the record. Amended copy of the Judgment be uploaded accordingly.

(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Corrected Judgment dated 3rd September 2026 :-
2 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1002 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2023

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SARANG V. KOTWAL :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE,:

. To be referred to the Law Reports or not? :

Transcribed by:
Ms. Supriya Ghule
Personal Assistant to Hon’ble Judge
3 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1002 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2023

Rakesh Ramesh Naukudkar,
Age : 40 years
R/o : Room No.29, Building No.65,
BDD Chawl, Bhagoji Waghmare Marg,
Worli, Mumbai.
(At present undergoing the sentence
imposed upon him at Mumbai
Central Prison, Mumbai.) ..Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Senior
Inspector of Police, NRI,
Sagari Police Station vide
F.I.R. No. I-20 of 2016) ..Respondent
__________

Mr. Nitin Sejpal with Ms. Pooja Sejpal, Ms. Akshata, Desai, Mr. Sahir
Patel for the Appellant.
Ms. Gauri Rao, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.
__________

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
4 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

JUDGMENT [PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J] :-

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order

dated 10th January 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Thane in Sessions Case No. 278 of 2016. The Appellant was convicted

for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted for commission of

offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and was sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

The substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently. The Appellant was granted set-off under Section 428 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

2. Heard, Mr. Nitin Sejpal, learned Counsel for the Appellant

and Ms. Gauri Rao, learned A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :

The Appellant was having an extra marital affair. He

wanted divorce from his wife Savita. She was not willing to give

divorce. She was working at Kharghar. The Appellant was working at
5 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

Kalyan. As per their daily routine, the Appellant used to pick her up

after their office and they used to come back to their residence at Worli

on their motorcycle.

On 9th February 2016, the Appellant went to pick her up at

Kharghar. According to the prosecution case, during that time he

committed murder of his wife Savita. He attempted to cause death by

strangulating her with a wire. He banged her head on the stony ground.

He left the dead body within the jurisdiction of NRI Sagari Police

Station. He came back to Worli. He pretended of making enquiry with

the relatives. On the next day, he went to Kharghar Police Station

informing them about his wife not returning home. Thereafter, he went

to bring her photograph, on the way he went to NRI, Sagari Police

Station and lodged a complaint regarding missing of his wife. The dead

body of his wife was found in the evening on 10 th February 2016. The

Police suspected the Appellant. He was immediately arrested. The

investigation was conducted. During investigation, the shop from where

he had brought the wire was found, the CDR of the phone numbers

used by the Appellant, his lady friend and his deceased wife were

collected, different Panchnamas were conducted, statements of different

witnesses were recorded and the charge-sheet was filed. One of the

incriminating circumstances was finding of a handkerchief from dickey
6 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

of his two wheeler. The handkerchief had blood stains of AB group. The

Appellant’s blood group was A.

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was

filed. During trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, including the

panchas, brother and sister of the deceased, the Medical Officer, co-

workers of the Appellant and the deceased and Police Officers.

4. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. He gave

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. According to him, he and his

wife had left their house at Worli on 9th February 2016 at about 8.00

a.m. He left Savita at Vashi signal. He went to Dombivali to attend his

work. At about 6.00 p.m., Savita called him on his telephone informing

him that her office time was over. She had called him from her office at

Kharghar. The Appellant started from his office and reached Vashi bus

stop at 7.10 p.m. He made a phone call to Savita but her mobile was

switched off. He waited there for about one hour, then he went back to

Worli. According to him, one year prior to this incident, she had gone to

her parental house at Bhusaval with their son. On one occasion prior to

the incident she had gone to Matheran without informing anyone. At

that time, she had switched off her phone. The Appellant waited for her

till about 11.00 a.m. on 10th February 2016. He contacted Savita’s

relatives but there was no clue; therefore, he went to the Police Station
7 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

and gave the statement. On 10th February 2016 in the evening, the

Officers of NRI, Sagari Police Station made a phone call to him and

informed him that Savita’s dead body was found on a road near NRI

complex and DPS High School. He had fallen on the dead body,

therefore, there was blood on his hands. He wiped it with a

handkerchief. On 11th February 2016, he was arrested at about 8.00

p.m. He further stated in his statement that, he had not purchased the

wire. The handkerchief was taken from him and it was shown recovered

from his motorcycle. There was no dispute with his wife.

5. The learned trial Judge considered the evidence and the

defence. He held that, the prosecution had proved the motive. He held

that, the Appellant’s conduct was indicating his guilt. The blood found

on the handkerchief shows his complicity. The last known location of

the deceased and the Appellant was at Kharghar. The Appellant had

purchased a wire from shop of PW-5. There was an injury to the hand of

the Appellant. He was having an affair with PW-11. The deceased was

refusing to give him a divorce. All these circumstances were considered

together by the learned trial Judge to hold that, the prosecution had

proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

As mentioned by the learned trial Judge and also by the

learned Counsel for the parties before us, this is the case based on
8 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident.

6. PW 1 Police Hawaldar Suryakant Baraskar was attached to

NRI, Sagari Police Station. He was on duty between 9.00 p.m. on 9 th

February 2016 till 9.00 a.m. on 10 th February 2016 as Police Station

Officer. At about 5.00 p.m. on 10 th February 2016, he was on patrolling

duty when they reached near Delhi Public School near NRI safety wall.

They found a dead body of a woman. There was mud on the head. The

blood was oozing from her nose. One purse was lying near her side.

They took search of her purse. Aadhaar card of the Appellant was found

inside. He informed PSI Pawar of his Police Station. He in turn, told him

that the Appellant had already lodged a missing complaint at Kharghar

Police Station bearing No. 13 of 2016. PW 1 went back to the Police

Station and lodged ADR No. 8 of 2016. It is produced on record at

Exhibit-19. The ADR was registered at about 9.00 p.m. The dead body

was found at about 7.00 p.m. The distance between the spot of the

incident and NRI Sagari Police Station is a 5 minutes ride by a vehicle.

The ADR was registered against an unknown person. The ADR

substantially corroborates his evidence.

7. PW 2 PSI Namdeo Pawar was attached to NRI Sagari Police

Station. He deposed that, the Appellant came to the Police Station at

about 4.00 p.m. He informed the Police that, his wife had not returned
9 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

home since the evening of 9 th February 2016 and that he had lodged a

missing complaint at Kharghar Police Station on 10 th February 2016

bearing No. 13 of 2016. PW 2 recorded this information in a rough

body of the Appellant’s wife was found. PW 2 and other Police Officers

went to the spot. They saw the dead body lying at the spot. There were

crushed stones near her face. There were marks of strangulation on her

neck. He prepared the spot panchnama. Her purse, a black coloured

mobile phone without sim card was recovered. The Aadhaar card of the

Appellant was also recovered from her purse. The dead body was taken

to the NMMC hospital. An Inquest Panchnama was conducted. He

discussed the matter with the Senior Police Inspector, on his advice he

registered an FIR bearing C.R. No. 20 of 2016 against the Appellant. A

copy of the FIR is produced on record at Exhibit-25.

In the cross-examination he stated that, the distance

between the spot of the incident and the Police Station was half km. He

had not verified the call based on the IMEI number. The IMEI numbers

were found from the spot. He had lodged the FIR on 11 th February 2016

at about 4.45 p.m. The ADR is produced at Exhibit-22, it was regarding

the missing of the deceased Savita. The spot panchanama has been

produced on record at Exhibit-23, it was conducted between 9.30 p.m.
10 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

and 10.15 p.m. on 10th February 2016. The FIR substantially

corroborates his evidence. However, the FIR was lodged against an

unknown person. Though he had stated in the deposition that, the FIR

was lodged against the Appellant, the FIR itself shows that, it was

against an unknown person which is a major discrepancy between his

deposition and the FIR.

8. PW 3 Police Naik Lalit Mahajan was attached to NRI Sagari

Police Station. His evidence is similar to that of PW 1 and PW 2.

9. PW 4 Rutika Chavan was co-worker of the deceased. She

was working in the same office as that of the deceased. She deposed

that, the deceased had appeared tense. She told this witness that, the

Appellant was having an extra marital relationship with another person.

On 9th February 2016, she and the deceased left their office at 6.15 p.m.

They went to a beauty parlour. Savita received a phone call from her

husband. He told her that, he would come to pick her up at Kharghar.

Savita told this fact to this witness. PW 4 then went away. They had left

the beauty parlour at about 6.45 p.m. The next day when she reached

the office, the office was closed, the keys were with the deceased but

she had not come to the office. She made a phone call to their employer

Mangesh Deshpande who came there and opened the office at about

11.00 a.m. The Appellant came to their office asking for his wife.
11 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

In the cross-examination, she deposed that their office was

at Kharghar. The deceased was residing at Worli. The deceased had not

shared anything else except making the grievance that the Appellant

was having an extra marital relationship.

10. PW 6 Mangesh Deshpande was the employer of the

deceased. He deposed that, the deceased was working with him as a

computer operator. She used to come to the office by train from Vashi to

Kharghar. The Appellant used to drop her off and receive her at Vashi.

On 10th February 2016, the deceased did not come to open the office.

On the same day, at about 11.00 a.m., the Appellant came asking for his

wife.

In the cross-examination, he could not explain as to why

the Police did not mention that, the Appellant used to pick and drop the

deceased at Vashi station.

11. PW 8 Dattaram Nikam was co-worker of the Appellant. He

deposed that, he was working as a service manager at their branch at

Kalyan. The Appellant was working with him. The Appellant was a

service advisor. The job profile of the Appellant was to take an inventory

of the vehicles of the customers and provide services. On 9 th February

2016, the Appellant came at about 9.21 a.m. and left the office at about
12 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

6.30 p.m.

In the cross-examination he accepted that, the Appellant

was in the office till 6.30 p.m.

12. PW 5 Rajkumar Chapalot was a shop owner. According to

the prosecution case, the Appellant had purchased the wire from his

shop. He deposed that, on 9th February 2016, one customer came to his

shop and purchased 4 meters of wire. It was a 4 square M.M. Polycab

company wire. PW 5 had cut it from the box. The purchaser cut it into

two pieces and went away. On 12th February 2016, the Police came to

his shop. He was out of the station. He returned on 16 th February 2016.

The Police made an enquiry with him. He took the remaining wire from

the box to the Police Station. He deposed that, he could identify the

person who had purchased the wire. He identified the Appellant. He

could not identify the wire purchased from his shop.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that, the person who

had come to the shop to purchase the wire was not known to him.

Importantly, he admitted that, the Police had shown the Appellant to

him and that he identified the Appellant in the presence of the Police.

He also admitted that, he told the Police that, the said person had

purchased 4 meter of wire from his shop. He had no documentary
13 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

evidence to show that, the Appellant had purchased the wire from his

shop.

13. PW 7 Bhagirathi Jaiswal had made photocopies of the

deceased’s photo. He deposed that, on 10 th February 2016, at about

12.00 p.m., one person came to his shop to make copies. But this

witness could not identify the Appellant before the Court.

14. PW 9 Rahul Pagare was examined as a panch. He deposed

that, the Appellant told them that he had purchased a wire from a

particular shop. The panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-58.

The panchnama mentions that, the Appellant had shown the shop. The

Police Constable Mhatre went inside the shop and procured the wire.

However, this story is different from the prosecution case because PW 5

has stated that, he had produced the remaining wire at the Police

Station. There are other statements in the panchnama which are in the

nature of confession but those statements are inadmissible; because

those statements have not led to the discovery of any fact or any article

and they were made while the Appellant was in the custody of the

Police.

15. PW 10 Sanjay Madane, Police Head Constable was attached

to Kharghar Police Station. The Appellant came to their Police Station
14 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

on 10th February 2016 and informed them that his wife was missing

since the previous day. He informed the Police that, he was to meet his

wife at about 7.00 p.m. as per their routine. He tried to contact her

through her mobile phone but her mobile phone was switched off. He

was waiting for his wife during the entire night but she did not return.

Even earlier she had gone missing. He had contacted the relatives but

there was no clue. Therefore, he lodged report regarding the missing of

his wife. The said complaint regarding missing of his wife is produced

on record at Exhibit 69. The said Exhibit shows that, the complaint was

registered at 4.50 p.m. on 10th February 2016 at Kharghar Police

Station.

In the cross-examination he deposed that, he asked the

Appellant to bring photographs of his wife. He returned to the Police

Station with the photographs. He was at the Police Station till 5.00 p.m.

PW 10 received a telephonic message from Sagari Police Station that,

the dead body of the missing woman was found in their jurisdiction.

16. PW 12 Satkar Koli was a professional photographer. He was

called by the Police to the spot where the dead body was lying. He took

photographs of the spot and the dead body. He produced those

photographs on record at Exhibit 75. He also produced a certificate

under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. He then deposed about the
15 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

Appellant demonstrating the events during the actual incident.

However, that portion is clearly inadmissible. The Appellant was in the

custody of the Police.

17. PW 11 was a lady with whom the Appellant was having an

affair as per the prosecution case. She deposed that, while she was

working at Millennium Toyota, she met the Appellant who was working

there as a service advisor. They became friends. Their friendship turned

into a love relationship. After few days, she started working for a

different company but they still kept in touch. After some days, she

came to know that, the Appellant was a married man and that he had a

son. After that, she started avoiding his calls. According to her, the

Appellant proposed marriage to her but she refused his proposal. She

came to know that, the Appellant was arrested in connection with the

murder of his wife.

In the cross-examination she deposed that, she was

working at Millennium company at Mira Road. The Appellant was

residing at Worli but when she came to know about his marital status,

she stopped communicating with him.

18. PW 13 Yogesh Patil was the brother of the deceased. He

deposed that, after the marriage of Savita with the Appellant, she used
16 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

to make complaint regarding the Appellant. She used to say that, the

Appellant did not give her food. PW 13 used to recharge her mobile

phone. She and her son had come to Jalgoan and stayed there for a few

days. When she returned back to Mira Road where she was residing

with the Appellant initially, she came to know that, the Appellant had

locked the room and had left from there. Savita informed this witness

that, the Appellant was having an affair. On 10 th February 2016, he

received a telephonic message from the Appellant. He enquired whether

Savita had come to their place at Jalgaon. On 10 th February 2016 itself

the Appellant lodged a complaint regarding the missing of Savita. The

Appellant informed this witness’s elder sister that, Savita had met with

an accident. In the meantime, he received a message from the Police

that, Savita’s dead body was found. Then this witness and other family

members rushed to the hospital. Police informed him that, the Appellant

had committed the murder because he was having an affair with

another lady.

In the cross-examination he deposed that, he received the

message about 9.00 a.m to 10 a.m. He called his elder sister Rekha and

informed her about Savita. Rekha was residing at Mira Road. He

admitted that, he left Jalgaon when he came to know that Savita had

passed away.
17 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

19. PW 15 Kavita Patil was the sister of the deceased Savita.

She was also residing in Jalgaon. Her evidence is similar to the evidence

of PW 13 Yogesh Patil, her brother.

In the cross-examination, she admitted that Savita’s son

was residing with the Appellant’s parents. She herself never tried to

meet him. She did not know where the Appellant’s parents were

residing.

20. PW 14 Dr. Sanjay Yamgar had conducted the postmortem

examination. The Post-mortem Notes are placed on record at Exhibit 95.

There were 7 external injuries noted. The main injury was an abraded

contusion over the right forehead. There was one linear abrasion over

the neck. There were other contusions on the shoulders. The cause of

death was mentioned as head injury due to attempted throttling. PW 14

had collected blood, hair, nail, swab of private parts and viscera from

the dead body.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that, the cause of

death was not due to throttling; it was because of the head injury.

According to him, that injury could be caused due to a hard and blunt

object and also if the head was banged on the wall.

21. PW 16 Police Naik Satish Guge had carried the seized
18 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

articles to the FSL, on 22nd February 2016.

22. PW 17 Prembhai Mhatre was a panch, but he was declared

hostile. He did not support the prosecution case. He was panch for the

recovery of the articles found on the dead body. The panchnama was

produced on record at Exhibit 109 because when he was cross-

examined by the learned APP, he accepted that, the Police had shown

the clothes of the deceased and some articles and they had prepared a

panchnama in his presence. The panchnama shows that, the

mangalsutra, earrings, other rings and a watch were recovered.

23. PW 18 Vikrant Shelke was vice president of the Appellant’s

company. He deposed that, the Appellant attended the duty from 9.21

a.m. till 7.00 p.m. on 9th February 2016. He deposed about the

telephone number used by the Appellant. It was 9167770221.

24. PW 19 Dr. Pramila Mane had examined the Appellant after

his arrest and she had found an abrasion over the Appellant’s right

hand. There was swelling of the size 1 X 1 cm. The injury was simple in

nature. According to her, the injury was possibly caused by falling on a

hard and rough surface. It was caused more than 6 hours before he was

brought to her hospital by the Police at 10.15 p.m. on 11 th February

2015.
19 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

In the cross-examination she admitted that, the injury

mentioned in the Medical Certificate produced by her at Exhibit-130 are

possible for a car mechanic.

25. PW 20 Manoj Patil was a Nodal Officer working with Bharti

Airtel. He produced the CDR of the mobile phone number 9004910476

which was used by Savita.

26. PW 21 Baby John was a Nodal officer attached to Tata Tele

Services. Surprisingly, through this witness, the phone number of PW 11

were produced on record at Exhibit 145, but we find that it was of a

different company i.e., Aircel, and PW 21 could not have produced

details about that phone number. Therefore, the prosecution has not

established the contact details between the Appellant and PW 11.

27. PW 22 Pramod Shinde was attached to NRI Sagari Police

Station as API. He conducted the investigation in the offence i.e. C.R.

No. 20/2016 registered at NRI, Sagari Police Station from 11 th February

2016 onwards. He arrested the Appellant under a panchnama. It is

produced on record at Exhibit 156. He deposed about the investigation

carried out by him regarding seizure of the clothes and articles of the

deceased, collected the information about phone number, seizure of

handkerchief, seizure of box of wire and rest of the investigation carried
20 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

out by him.

In the cross-examination he admitted that, he suspected the

Appellant only on the basis of the CDR. He recorded statements of the

relatives of the deceased after he had arrested the Appellant. None of

the witnesses had narrated about the specific date or month on which

the Appellant had allegedly ill-treated the deceased. He accepted that,

the box of wire purchased from PW 5 was not shown to the Medical

Officer.

28. PW 23 Changdeo Godse was a Nodal Officer working with

Vodafone. He produced the information regarding the mobile phone

number 9167770221 purportedly used by the Appellant on 9 th February

2016 and 10th February 2016.

29. This in short is the evidence led by the Prosecution.

30. The learned Counsel for the Appellant made the following

submissions :-

Shri. Nitin Sejpal, learned Counsel for the Appellant

submitted that, the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence.

None of the circumstances is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The

chain of circumstances is not complete. The learned Judge erred in

holding that, all the circumstances were proved. He submitted that, the
21 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

Prosecution had alleged that there was motive to commit murder, but it

has not proved that the Appellant was in touch with PW 11. The

telephone record produced on record does not establish that they were

constantly in touch; because the call data record and the phone number

of PW 11 are not produced on record. PW 21 was not concerned with

the telephone service provider of PW 11’s phone number and, therefore,

her call data record and the fact that she was using that particular

phone are not proved.

The other motive is that, the Appellant was ill-treating the

deceased, which is also not proved. None of the relatives of the

deceased had made any such grievance in the past. Their statements

were recorded only after the Appellant was arrested. They had not

made any efforts to come to Mumbai to take part in the search for the

deceased on 10th February 2016. They came to Mumbai only after the

Police informed them that the dead body was found. The circumstance

of seizing the handkerchief which was proved to have blood of AB

group, is not an incriminating circumstance because the Prosecution has

not proved that the deceased was having blood of AB group. The

Appellant’s conduct was quite normal. The learned Judge erred in

holding that, his conduct was unnatural. The evidence in the nature of

the demonstration of the incident is admissible because the Appellant
22 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

was in Police Custody. Evidence in the nature of confession in Police

Custody was inadmissible. It was not in the presence of any Magistrate.

The seizure of the handkerchief is doubtful. The Panchas were not

examined. The shopkeeper admits that, the Police had shown the

Appellant to him and, therefore, his identification of the Appellant is

not acceptable. There is doubt as to how and when the wire from PW 5

was seized by the Police. The motive alleged is very weak. The PW 11

has deposed that, she had severed the relationship. There is nothing

further to show that, either the deceased or the Appellant had taken any

steps to address this issue.

31. The learned A.P.P., Ms. Gauri Rao, on the other hand,

submitted that the Prosecution has proved the motive beyond

reasonable doubt. PW 11 had deposed that, in spite of her telling the

Appellant that she did not want to continue with their relationship, the

Appellant had proposed marriage to her. The conduct of the Appellant is

unnatural. It is difficult to accept that, in spite of knowing that the

deceased was missing, he came back home at Worli and spent a

peaceful night between 9th and 10th February 2016. He had no reason to

go to NRI, Sagari Police Station. PW 4 had deposed that the deceased

had told her that the Appellant used to come to pick her up, therefore,

the Appellant was the natural suspect. The time when he left his
23 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

company on 9th February 2016 matches with the time when the

deceased was expecting him to meet her. She submitted that, the

Appellant has not explained the blood on the handkerchief. His own

blood group was A and, therefore, the finding of blood of a different

blood group is an incriminating circumstance and only the Appellant

could have explained that circumstance.

32. We have considered these submissions. The learned Judge

had enumerated the circumstances against the Appellant. In short, the

circumstances are motive, the time when she went missing, the conduct

of the Appellant during the night, deliberately giving a complaint at

Kharghar Police Station to mislead the Police, non-explanation as to

why he approached NRI Sagari Police Station, finding of the dead body

matching the allegations and timing of the incident, blood on the

handkerchief of the Appellant, the CDR of phone numbers, recovery of

wire and injury on the hand.

33. As far as motive is concerned, there is evidence of PW 11. It

shows that, there was a love relationship between the Appellant and PW

11, but there is no definite material that they were continuously in

touch in and around the period of the incident, as mentioned earlier.

The record of the phone number of PW 11 is not properly proved by the

prosecution by examining the service provider of the phone number
24 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

used by PW 11. In any case, motive is a weak circumstance which the

Prosecution has brought on record. It is not connected with the other

parts of the chain of the circumstances. The motive is not proved

beyond reasonable doubt and, in any case, it is a weak piece of evidence

in this case.

34. Finding of blood of AB group on the handkerchief of the

Appellant is also not an incriminating circumstance. In this case, the

Prosecution has failed to prove that the blood group of the deceased

was AB. Unless there was a connection between the blood found on the

handkerchief with the blood of the deceased, it cannot be termed as an

incriminating circumstance. The panchas of this recovery panchnama

are not examined. The reference to seizure of this handkerchief is at

Exhibit 161, which was a seizure form in respect of the search. It

mentions that, handkerchief was found behind the engine of the

Appellant’s motorcycle. It was not recovered at the instance of the

Appellant pursuant to the memorandum statement given by the

Appellant. This recovery was effected on 11 th February 2016. The

handkerchief was not concealed anywhere, it was simply kept on the

engine. Therefore, this is also a weak piece of evidence.

35. The next circumstance alleged by the prosecution is about

the recovery of the wire from the shop of PW 5. As mentioned earlier,
25 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

there is doubt about the manner in which the wire was recovered. At

one point, one of the panchas, PW 9 Rahul Pagare had stated that, the

Appellant had led them to the shop from where the wire was seized.

However, PW 5 himself had stated that, he was informed by his wife

that the Police were making enquiries on that day. He was out of

station. He came back after a few days and then he produced the wire

in the Police Station. Therefore, the seizure of the wire is also not

proved. There is no further connecting evidence in the form of expert

analysis to show that it was the same wire from which a 6 ft. piece was

cut and sold to the Appellant and that those pieces were found near the

body. PW 5 has accepted that, the Police had shown the Appellant to

him. All these circumstances raised suspicion against the Prosecution’s

case. Therefore, this circumstance is also not proved by the Prosecution

beyond reasonable doubt.

36. The other circumstance is regarding the ill-treatment meted

out to the deceased by the Appellant. In that connection, the

Prosecution has examined PW 13 and PW 15. They were the brother

and sister of the deceased. However, they had not mentioned any

specific instance of an ill-treatment. Their statements were recorded

after the Appellant was arrested. Their own conduct does not inspire

confidence. They had not taken any steps to search for the deceased
26 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

during the entire day of 10th February 2016. They had not rushed to

Mumbai to join in the search for the deceased.

37. The learned APP criticised the conduct of the Appellant of

going back to his house at Worli and not making efforts to look for the

deceased during the entire night. However, the evidence shows that he

waited for his wife at Vashi bus stop for quite some time. Her phone was

not reachable, therefore, he had no option but to return home at Worli.

Once he came back on his two wheeler from Worli, he waited for her to

return. His defence is that, in the past also, on a few occasions, the

deceased had left the house without informing him. In any case, on the

next morning, he immediately called the brother and sister of the

deceased at Jalgoan. When he came to know that she had not reached

Jalgaon, he went back to Kharghar Police Station and informed them.

Therefore, we do not find anything unusual in his conduct. After that,

he was asked to get the photographs which took some time. In the

meantime, he had attended some work in the office. On his way back,

he went to NRI Sagari Police Station and made enquiries. The dead

body was ultimately found within the jurisdiction of NRI Sagari Police

Station. It is difficult to believe that, he offered clues to the Police

Station within whose jurisdiction the dead body was lying. We do not

find the conduct of the Appellant to be incriminating against him.
27 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

38. As mentioned earlier, the telephone records are not

properly proved, and there is nothing to show that the record was

incriminating.

39. The injury on his hand did not unerringly point only to the

hypothesis of having suffered the injuries during the incident. The

nature of his job was related to the service of the vehicles and,

therefore, it was not unusual. The handset used by the deceased was

found near the spot. However, there was no sim card. The sim card was

not recovered.

40. Thus, it can be seen that the Prosecution has failed to prove

each of these circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecution

has not proved that the chain of circumstances points unerringly to the

guilt of the accused and to no other hypothesis. In this case, the

Appellant deserves benefit of doubt and, therefore, the impugned

Judgment and Order are required to be set aside. Hence, the following

Order :-

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 10 th January 2023

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in
28 of 28 901-APEAL-163-2023

Sessions Case No. 278 of 2016 is set aside.

(iii) The Appellant is acquitted from all the charges.

(iv) The Appellant be released forthwith if not required in

any other case.

(v) Before being released, the Appellant shall execute a

PR bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- in consonance

with Section 481 of BNSS to ensure his availability in

case, Appeal against acquittal is preferred.

(vi) The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(vii) With the disposal of the Appeal, the connected

Application is also disposed of.

(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Digitally
signed by
SAGAR
SAGAR SANTOSH
SANTOSH MAGAR
MAGAR Date:
2026.09.11
18:50:57
+0530

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…