BHIMRAO NAGURAO PANDITversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                      Gokhale                       1 of 19               1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2024

                     Bhimrao Nagurao Pandit                             ..Appellant
                          Versus
                     The State of Maharashtra                           ..Respondent

                                                   WITH
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5227 OF 2024
                                                     IN
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2024
                                                 __________
                     Mr. Ibrahim Shaikh i/b. Mr. Ashraf Ali Shaikh for Appellant.
                     Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl.P.P. for State/Respondent.
                                                 __________

                                             CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                     ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

                                             DATE    : 27 JULY 2026

                     JUDGMENT : (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

                     1.           The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order

                     dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                     Judge, Khed-Rajguru Nagar, Pune, in Sessions Case No.154 of

                     2019. The Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence

                     punishable U/s.302 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for

                     life. He was also convicted for commission of the offence

                     punishable U/s.397 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for

        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.07.30
        12:56:43
        +0530
                                2 of 19                    1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


seven years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

He was given benefit of set off U/s.428 of the Cr.P.C.


2.        Heard Mr. Ibrahim Shaikh, learned counsel for the

Appellant and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned Additional P.P.

for the State-Respondent.


3.        The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:


            The deceased Suyash Gund had lost his grand-mother

on 28.07.2018. He was about to visit her place in a different

village. On the way, he first wanted to go to the house of his friend

Satish Gadekar, residing at Chakan. Suyash was originally a

resident of Sankrapur, Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. He was

working in MIDC Koregaon. At about 11:30p.m. on 28.07.2018, he

came to Chakan. He called the first informant Satish asking him

about his address and as to how to reach his room. When he came

near the room of PW-2 Satish, he was stopped by three unknown

persons. They tried to snatch the mobile phone and money from

him. He resisted. One of those three persons inflicted a blow of

knife on his stomach. They snatched his mobile phone and went
                                3 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


away. Suyash shouted. The first informant Satish heard his shouts.

He came down. He saw that Suyash had suffered serious injury on

his stomach. He sought help of other people in the area. He was

first taken to Unicare Hospital, Chakan. He was advised to be

taken to a bigger hospital. They went to Aditya Birla hospital, but

the Doctors demanded heavy deposit. The first informant was not

in a position to make that deposit. In the afternoon, Suyash was

taken to D. Y. Patil Hospital. Since it was a Sunday, they refused to

perform surgery. Suyash was then taken to Vighnaharta Hospital,

where he underwent the surgery, but his health deteriorated. In

the meantime, Suyash’s parents were informed. The police

recorded the statement of the first informant in Vighnaharta

Hospital. Suyash was shifted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune, where he

succumbed to his injury on 05.08.2018. Satish’s statement

recorded at Vighnaharta hospital was treated as the FIR. The

offence vide C.R.No.693 of 2018 was registered at Chakan police

station against an unknown person on 29.07.2018 at 7:20p.m. The

investigation was carried out. The spot panchanama was

conducted. After the death of the deceased, postmortem
                               4 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


examination was conducted. The Appellant was already arrested in

connection with a different crime. His custody was transferred to

the present offence. It is the prosecution case that, during the

investigation, the Appellant showed willingness to take the

panchas and police to his house where he had kept the mobile

phone taken from the deceased and the knife used in the offence.

The recovery was effected on 20.11.2018. The articles were sent

for chemical analysis. At the conclusion of the investigation, the

charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of

Session.


4.         During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses

including the first informant, the father of the deceased, the

Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination, the

panchas and the police officers.


5.         The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. The

learned Judge relied on the circumstance of recovery of mobile

phone and the knife at the instance of the Appellant, and on this

solitary circumstance, the learned Judge convicted the Appellant.
                              5 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


6.       PW-2 Satish Gadekar was the first informant. He

deposed that, in the year 2018 he was residing in Swami Samarth

Apartment, on the third floor. He was knowing the deceased

Suyash. They had studied in the same college. The deceased was

originally from Rahuri. He was working in MIDC Koregaon. In July

2018, the deceased lost his maternal grand-mother. He wanted to

attend the funeral. He made a telephone call to PW-2 because he

was getting late. It was night time. He wanted to come to the room

of the first informant. At around 11:30p.m. on 28.07.2018 he

reached Chakan. He made a telephone call to PW-2 and asked his

address. He came near PW-2’s room. He was stopped by some

unknown persons. PW-2 has deposed that, those persons wanted to

snatch his mobile phone. When the deceased resisted, he was

assaulted on his abdomen with a knife. PW-2 heard the shouts. He

came down. He saw Suyash (deceased). His intestine was

protruding out. Suyash told him that there were three persons.

They had run away. PW-2 brought Suyash to the room. He sought

help of others and took Suyash to Unicare Hospital, Chakan. The

police were informed. They had reached that hospital. The doctors
                                6 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


gave him first-aid and sent him to Aditya Birla Hospital. The

doctors asked them to deposit Rs.1 lakh. The amount was big,

therefore, Suyash was taken to D. Y. Patil Hospital. But since it was

a Sunday, the Doctors told him that they would not perform the

surgery. Then Suyash was taken to Vighnaharta Hospital, where he

was admitted. The surgery was performed. Suyash’s parents were

informed. They came to the hospital. After about three days

Suyash’s parents shifted him to Sassoon Hospital. In the meantime,

the police had come to Vighnaharta hospital. PW-2 had given his

complaint. PW-2 further deposed that Suyash was having a mobile

handset of Asus company. He was assaulted near a light pole in

front of a temple. PW-2 identified his FIR. It is produced on record

at Exhibit-21. He explained that Suyash was not in a position to

speak in Vighnaharta hospital. The police had made enquiries with

Suyash in the hospital at Chakan, but they had not taken down

anything in writing.


           In the cross-examination, he deposed that the road in

front of his building was used by the people. When PW-2 heard the

shouts, he came down. But at that time, there was no one else
                                 7 of 19               1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


except Suyash. At that time, Suyash was talking clearly. PW-2 did

not know who informed the police. They admitted Suyash in

Unicare Hospital at around 1:00a.m. They went to Aditya Birla

Hospital one hour after that. They were present in that hospital for

about one hour. Then they went to D. Y. Patil Hospital at around

3:00a.m. They reached Vighnaharta hospital at about 4:00a.m.

The others who had helped PW-2 to take Suyash to the hospital

did not come to Vighnaharta hospital. The police came to

Vighnaharta hospital at around 10:00a.m. in the morning. He

deposed that he did not know the details of the mobile handset of

Suyash. He did not know the SIM card number. Certain minor

omissions from his FIR were brought on record, but those

omissions did not go to the root of the matter. After the surgery,

Suyash was talking a little. PW-2 went to Sassoon Hospital after 4

to 5 days.


7.           PW-4 Balasaheb Gund was the father of the deceased. He

deposed that the deceased was working in MIDC Bhima Koregaon.

His grand-mother passed away on 28.07.2018. Suyash wanted to

attend the funeral. When Suyash had reached Chakan, some
                                8 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


unknown person assaulted him and took away his mobile handset

of Asus company. PW-4 and his wife (parents of Suyash) came to

Vighnaharta hospital in the morning. Even after the surgery,

Suyash’s health did not improve, therefore, he was taken to

Sassoon Hospital. Suyash died on 05.08.2018. PW-4 further

deposed that Suyash had purchased that mobile phone through

online shopping. At that time, he was studying at Chas. PW-4

stated that he had given a copy of the bill of mobile phone

purchase to the police. He brought the original bill and produced it

before the Court. It is taken on record at Exhibit-29. One sealed

packet was opened in the Court. There was one mobile handset.

The parcel was numbered as VPR No.22/2023. He identified that

mobile handset as that of his son. It was taken on record as Article

‘A’.


           In the cross-examination, he admitted that, till his

deposition, he had not given the original bill for purchase of that

mobile phone to the police. He had not told the police in his

statement that he had given a copy of the said bill to the police. He

had not informed the police that the original bill was with him.
                                    9 of 19          1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


The Exhibit-29 which is the said receipt mentions two IMEI

numbers.


8.         PW-1 Waman Gore and PW-3 Aniket Gore were the two

panchas for the spot panchanama which is produced on record at

Exhibit-19. The spot of the incident is not in dispute. PW-1 Waman

in his cross-examination stated that he did not know what process

was followed by the police. They obtained his signature on the

panchanama, but he did not know what was written in that

panchanama.


9.         PW-3 Aniket, however, stood firm on his deposition that

the spot panchanama was conducted in his presence. He identified

the spot panchanama at Exhibit-19. He described the spot as near

the light pole near that society.


10.        PW-6 Dr. Abhijit Bandgar had conducted the postmortem

examination. The postmortem notes are produced on record at

Exhibit-41. He noticed three stitched wounds on the abdomen.

There were other marks about therapeutic treatment. However, on

internal examination, he noticed injuries to small and large
                                 10 of 19               1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


intestines. He deposed that the stab injury was sufficient to cause

the death in ordinary course of business. The cause of death was

mentioned as “complications following stab injuries”.


11.       PW-5 Police Constable Subhash Pawar deposed that the

station officer in-charge of Chakan police station directed him to

go to Vighnaharta hospital, Morwadi to record the statement of the

injured. But Suyash was not in a position to speak. PW-2 Satish

was present. He gave the statement. It was treated as an FIR. PW-5

then conducted the first part of the investigation. He conducted

the spot panchanama. He recorded the statements of PW-2’s room

partner and other people residing nearby. He deposed that the

deceased succumbed to his injuries on 05.08.2018. Thereafter the

other serious offences were applied in the investigation.


            In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that

the spot was of heavy traffic.


12.       PW-7 Prakash Hole is an important witness. He was a

pancha for the recovery at the instance of the Appellant. He

deposed that, on 20.11.2018, the police called him to Chakan
                                 11 of 19                  1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


police station. He saw the accused named Pandit. The accused told

him that he had kept a knife and the mobile phone in his room.

The accused led the police and the panchas to Bhamboli. The

accused took out a knife and the mobile phone from a cupboard.

Those articles were seized. PW-7 identified the memorandum

statement and the recovery panchanama. They are produced on

record at Exhibits-43 and 44. He was shown a mobile phone at

Article ‘A’ and knife at Article ‘B’. He identified both the articles. He

was shown the accused through the video conferencing. PW-7

stated that he thought that, that person was the accused Pandit. He

did not positively identify the Appellant.


            In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not

remember on which date he was called to the police station. He

could not tell at what time they left the police station. They did not

make any enquiries when they reached that village. They did not

make any enquiry as to who was residing in that particular room

from where the recovery was effected. Importantly, he deposed

that, only the accused had gone inside the room. He further

deposed that, he could not tell for how long they were waiting
                               12 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


there. He himself did not take those articles i.e. knife and the

mobile phone in his own hands to see them clearly. There were no

special signs on those articles. After that, they were left at the

police station at about 6:00p.m. He further deposed that the police

brought those articles to the police station as they were recovered.

He deposed in the examination in chief that the mobile phone and

the knife were seized and that his signatures were taken, but there

is no reference to sealing of those articles and then taking their

signatures on the labels. However, the panchanama mentions that

those articles were seized and then sealed with the signatures of

the panchas.


13.       PW-8 ASI Sanjay Neelpatrewar was the investigating

officer. He took over the investigation of C.R.No.693 of 2018

registered at Chakan police station in this case on 05.08.2018. The

Appellant was arrested in connection with C.R.No.1064 of 2018 of

Chakan police station. His investigation revealed that the

Appellant was connected with the present case, therefore, he was

taken in custody and was shown as arrested on 17.11.2018. On

20.11.2018, he gave a statement which was recorded at Exhibit-
                               13 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


43. He showed his willingness to produce the mobile phone and

knife. He led the police and the panchas to his house. He took out

a knife and the mobile phone from the drawer of a cupboard. They

were seized. The knife and the blood samples of the deceased were

sent by this witness for chemical analysis. He was shown the bill

Exhibit-29. He deposed that the IMEI numbers of the seized mobile

phone handset and those mentioned on Exhibit-29 were the same.

He identified the mobile phone and the knife which he had seized.


           In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not

secure the CCTV footage around the area where the incident had

taken place. He could not say at what time they left the police

station to effect recovery. They had gone by a private vehicle. He

could not describe the vehicle. He could not state who had called

that vehicle. He had not shown any document regarding payment

of the fare of that private vehicle. He could not state at what time

they had reached the room from where the recovery was effected.

He did not record the statement of the owner of that house. He did

not record the statements of the neighbours of the house from

where the recovery was effected. He did not record the statements
                               14 of 19               1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


of the persons residing in the Appellant’s house. He could not tell

for how long they were at that place. They reached back at the

police station at around 3:30p.m.


           This is the evidence led by the prosecution. In addition,

the prosecution produced the C.A. certificate. It mentions that no

blood was detected on the knife sent for the chemical analysis.


SUBMISSIONS OF MR. IBRAHIM SHAIKH, LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR THE APPELLANT:

14.       Learned counsel submitted that the case is based purely

on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence. There is

only one circumstance of recovery led by the prosecution. That

circumstance is extremely doubtful. It is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt.


15.       The recovery evidence in the form of PW-7 Prakash and

PW-8 ASI Sanjay shows that the conviction cannot be based on

such doubtful evidence. There are no other circumstances led by

the prosecution. The chain of circumstance is not complete. The

alleged recovery was effected after about four months from the

incident. The ownership of the house is not established. How the
                              15 of 19              1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


Appellant had entered the house at the time of recovery is not

explained. It is not established that, that room was in exclusive

possession of the Appellant. The pancha PW-7 Prakash had not

clearly identified the Appellant in the Court. There was no blood

detected on the knife, therefore, that knife cannot be connected

with the incident. This is an important aspect because the mobile

phone was recovered at the same time. The recovery panchanama

mentions the IMEI number in a different ink. It is a manipulated

document.


SUBMISSIONS OF MS. MAHALAKSHMI GANAPATHY, LEARNED
ADDL.P.P. FOR THE STATE:

16.      Learned Addl.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that the

recovery was effected from the Appellant’s own room. The

evidence of PW-7 Prakash and PW-8 ASI Sanjay support each other

and hence, recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is a

strong circumstance. The purchase bill is produced on record. It

mentions the same IMEI numbers as that of the recovered mobile

phone and, therefore, this circumstance is enough to base the

conviction. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
                                16 of 19               1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


doubt.


REASONS AND CONCLUSION


17.       We have considered these submissions. As far as the

incident of assault and robbery is concerned, there is hardly any

doubt or dispute about occurrence of this incident. PW-2 Satish has

described as to how he had heard the shouts and then had seen

the deceased in injured condition. The injuries suffered by the

deceased are corroborated and explained by PW-6 Dr. Bandgar.

Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the prosecution story to that

extent that the deceased was assaulted with a knife on his

abdomen for the purpose of robbery. His mobile phone was not

found with him, therefore, it is also a reasonable inference that the

offender had taken away his mobile phone. The father of the

deceased PW-4 Balasaheb had produced the purchase bill of his

mobile phone.


18.       Therefore, the only main issue which needs to be

decided is, whether the Appellant is connected with the alleged

offence. The only evidence against the Appellant is the recovery of
                               17 of 19                1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


mobile phone and knife from his room. In this context, the

evidence which needs to be considered is that of PW-7 Prakash

who was a pancha, PW-8 ASI Sanjay, and the documentary

evidence at Exhibits-43 and 44 i.e. memorandum statement of the

Appellant and the recovery panchanama.


19.       In this context, PW-7 and PW-8 have not given reliable

evidence. PW-7 Prakash has not clearly identified the Appellant in

the Court. PW-8 ASI Sanjay has not given clear answers as to when

he had left the police station, at what time they had reached that

particular room, how long they had stayed there and how long it

took to effect the recovery. PW-8 deposed that, the Appellant

entered the room and took out the articles from the drawer of the

cupboard. On the other hand, PW-7 Prakash stated that the

Appellant alone had entered the room. This statement is contrary

to his examination in chief and the panchanama that the Appellant

had taken out those articles from a cupboard.


20.       The evidence of PW-8 is equally vague. According to

him, they had gone in a private vehicle. He did not give the details
                                  18 of 19             1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


of the vehicle. In fact, he deposed that he could not state who had

called that vehicle. He could not describe the vehicle. He did not

produce the receipt for paying the fare of that vehicle. PW-8 could

not tell around what time they reached the place from where the

recovery was effected.


21.       There is nothing to show that the room was locked or

somebody had occupied that room or that it was in exclusive

possession of the Appellant. This recovery was effected about four

months after the incident.


22.       The knife did not show presence of blood. The stolen

articles were not found in the possession of the Appellant soon

after the incident. Therefore, it would be very difficult to base the

conviction regarding commission of the offence against the

Appellant, on this solitary, vague and weak piece of evidence. The

learned Judge has based his conclusion only on this circumstance

to convict the Appellant. Therefore, in this case, the benefit of

doubt must be given to the Appellant. The conviction recorded

against him is not sustainable.
                               19 of 19                  1-apeal-1323-24 (J)


23.     Hence, the following order:


                                          ORDER


           i)   The Judgment and order dated 06.11.2024
                passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
                Khed-Rajguru Nagar, Pune, in Sessions Case
                No.154 of 2019, is set aside.

           ii) The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.

           iii) The Appellant shall be released forthwith if not
                required in any other offence.

           iv) Before being released, the Appellant shall execute
                a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15000/- in
                consonance of Section 481 of the Bharatiya
                Nagarik      Suraksha      Sanhita,   2023,    for     his
                appearance in case an Appeal against acquittal is
                preferred.

           v) The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

           vi) With disposal of the Appeal, the connected
                interim application is also disposed of.




(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)                      (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)