SANTOSH VITHAL PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

             Digitally signed
SANTOSH by SANTOSH
         SUBHASH                                      18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date: 2026.08.28
             21:06:12 +0530
                                                                                Santosh

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1313 OF 2026
                                                 IN
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2025

          Santosh Vitthal Pawar                                         ...Applicant-
                                                                            Appellant
                           Versus
          The State Of Maharashtra                                     …Respondent



          Ms. Anjali Patil, a/w Tohid Shaikh, for the Applicant –
               Appellant.
          Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State.
          Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the State in Appeal/176/2026.

                                                  CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATED: 27th AUGUST, 2026

          Order:-

          1.           Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

          2.           This is second application for suspension of sentence and

          to enlarge the applicant (A1) on bail during the pendency of the

          appeal.

          3.           The first application being IA/700/2025 was disposed as

          withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application

          after a period of nine months if, by that time, this appeal was

          not listed for final hearing. Since the appeal could not be taken




                                                1/6
                                     18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC

up for final hearing, availing the said liberty, the applicant has

preferred this application.

4.   Savita (the deceased), the daughter of Arun (PW-1), was

the wife of the applicant. The marriage of the applicant and

Savita was solemnized on 30th November, 2012. Post marriage

the deceased joined her matrimonial home at Hadapsar, Pune,

where the applicant, his father Vitthal (A2) and mother Mangal

(A3) were residing.

5.   The indictment against the applicant and co-accused was

that, in order to coerce the deceased to meet the unlawful

demand of 20 gram gold, freeze, cooler and other articles, the

accused subjected the deceased to unbearable harassment. The

deceased had narrated her woes to the first informant and other

prosecution witnesses. The deceased had made calls on the

phone of Dhananjay Bhosale (PW-5), relating the unlawful

demands and consequent harassment. On 24th May, 2018, the

deceased had called Dhananjay Bhosale (PW-5) and narrated

that an ultimatum was given to meet the demand within eight

days, lest her in-laws would kill her. On the next day, Vithal (A2)

made a call to Dhananjay Bhosale (PW-5) and informed him that

the deceased had set herself ablaze. Eventually, the deceased

succumbed to her injuries.

                               2/6
                                    18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC

6.   The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appraisal of

the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the material on

record, was persuaded to convict the applicant and the co-

accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A and

304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”). The

accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a

term of seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, with

default stipulation, for the major offense punishable under

Section 304B of the Penal Code.

7.   Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred Appeal No.

170/2025 and the co-accused have preferred Appeal No. 176 of

2025. The co-accused have been enlarged on bail.

8.   I have heard Ms. Anjali Patil, learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Mr. Haldankar, learned APP for the State.

9.   Ms. Patil submitted that the Applicant is sentenced to

suffer imprisonment for a term of 7 years, which is a fixed term

sentence. In the matter of fixed term of sentence, the Appellate

Court is required to consider the prayer for suspension of

sentence liberally.   The   Applicant was on bail during the

pendency of the trial for 12 long years. It was not the case that

the Applicant has abused the liberty while he was on bail.      The

Applicant has undergone sentence of imprisonment of one year

                              3/6
                                     18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC

and eight months. It is unlikely that this appeal can be taken

up for hearing and final disposal in the near future, and,

therefore, the sentence be suspended.

10.   To buttress the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Patil placed

reliance on the judgments in the cases of Bhagwan Rama

Shinde Gosai and Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat1; Angana and Anr.

V/s. State of Rajasthan2 and the orders in the cases of Aasif @

Pasha V/s. The State of U.P.and Ors. 3 and Vishnubhai

Ganpatbhai Patel and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat4.

11.   In opposition to this, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP,

strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It was

forcefully submitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty

and harassment in order to meet the demand of dowry soon

before her death. The day before the deceased met the death,

she had made a call and narrated her plight.          Therefore, the

applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

12.   I have given careful consideration to the submissions

canvassed across the bar.




1 (1999) 4 SCC 421
2 (2009) 3 SCC 767
3 2025 INSC 944
4 Cri. Appeal No.3415 of 2023 dt. 03/11/2023
                               4/6
                                     18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC

13.   The proved indictment against the Applicant is grave.

Offence of dowry death is serious. The deceased met an

unnatural death under six months of marriage.                   What

accentuates the situation is the fact that the deceased had

sustained 99% burn injuries.    The learned Sessions Judge has

categorically recorded that, the percentage and the nature of the

burn injuries suffered by the deceased, firmly ruled out the

explanation of the accused that the deceased had met an

accidental death.

14.   It is true, different considerations come into play when a

person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence.        In Bhagwan

Rama Shinde (supra), the Supreme Court has enunciated that,

when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of

sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right,

suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court

liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

15.   The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in a line of

decisions.

16.   In the case at hand, upon perusal of the evidence, with a

view to ascertain whether the Applicant stands a fair chance of

acquittal, without trying to pick up lacuna and loopholes in the

case of the prosecution, this Court finds that the emphasis laid

                               5/6
                                     18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC

by Ms. Patil on the use of the expression “in-laws”, (who made

the unlawful demand and harassed the deceased) by the

witnesses, does not advance the cause of the Applicant to the

extent that, ultimately the Applicant may be entitled to have

acquittal on that score.

17.   Conversely, the circumstances adverted to above, namely,

the death of the deceased under six months of the marriage,

99% burn injuries on her person, the consistent evidence of the

father, brother and Dhananjay Bhosale (PW5), with regard to the

narration of the demand and the consequent harassment in

order to meet the demands, soon before the death of the

deceased, prima facie, make out the exceptional circumstances,

despite the sentence being fixed one.

18.   For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to

suspend the sentence and release the Applicant on bail.

19.   The Interim Application, thus, stands rejected.

20.   Appeal Nos.170 of 2025 and 176 of 2025 be listed for

hearing and final disposal on 24 September 2026.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               6/6