Bombay High Court

ASHOK SANDU WANI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAULT AT FINAL HEARING STAGE

Holding

The Court held that the prosecution evidence clearly established the accuseds' participation and the use of an axe, warranting denial of bail and suspension of sentence.

Summary

Ashok and Arun, brothers, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in Aurangabad for offences under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 107/109 of the IPC. They filed an application seeking suspension of their sentence and bail, arguing that the prosecution's case lacked corroboration, was based on hearsay, the alleged weapon (axe) was not seized, and the medical expert was not examined. The State opposed, presenting the injured witness’s testimony and a medical expert’s report indicating injuries consistent with axe blows. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that eleven prosecution witnesses, including the injured party and his mother, identified the accused and described the use of an axe. Finding the evidence sufficient to establish the accuseds' roles and the seriousness of the offence, the Court declined to grant bail or suspend the sentence. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence against the accused is sufficient to deny bail and suspension of sentence in a case under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC.
Whether lack of corroboration, hearsay, and non‑seizure of the alleged weapon justify granting bail.
Whether the medical expert’s testimony, indicating injuries consistent with an axe, affects the bail application.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 107, 109, 307, 324, 34, 504

Subjects

bail
suspension of sentence
IPC 307
attempt to murder
evidence
corroboration
medical evidence
axe

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46577


                                                                     CriAppln-3865-2026
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3865 OF 2026
                                IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2026

                 1.    Ashok s/o Sandu Wani
                       Age : 28 years, Occupation Agriculture,
                       R/o : Dahegaon, Taluka Kannad,
                       District Aurangabad.

                 2.    Arun s/o Sandu Wani
                       Age : 26 years, Occupation Agriculture,
                       R/o : Dahegaon, Taluka Kannad,
                       District Aurangabad.                       … Applicants
                                                             [Ori Accused Nos. 1 & 2]
                              Versus

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Pishor Police Station,
                       Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad.        … Respondent
                                                  …..
                            Ms. Neeta S. Bagwe, Advocate for the Applicants.
                           Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                  .....

                                          CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on        : 05.10.2026
                                          Pronounced on      : 06.10.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.    Present application is for suspension of sentence and grant of

                 bail on account of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions

                 Judge-4, Aurangabad dated 11.08.2026 in Sessions Case No.

                 227/2017 convicting applicants for offence under Section 307 r/w 34,

                 107/109 of IPC.
                                                     CriAppln-3865-2026
                                  -2-

2.    Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that, crime

bearing no. 76 of 2016 was registered for offence under Sections 307,

324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against in all three accused including present

applicants. That, they were tried vide above Sessions Case and

present applicants came to be convicted for above referred offence.

Learned counsel would submit that, there is no corroboration to the

testimony of injured. She pointed out that, complainant and accused

party are cousins of each other and are joint property holders. That,

crime is registered on the basis of hearsay information. That, the act

was not premeditated, rather it was sudden. There are allegations of

use of axe but such allegations are only directed against accused Arun

and allegations against accused Ashok are of catching hold of injured.

Learned counsel pointed out that, here, though there are allegations

of use of axe, that same is not seized. Rather it is shown to be seized

in another crime which was fallout of a counter case. That, even the

doctor who examined and treated injured, has not been examined by

prosecution. That, applicants were on bail during trial. She would

point out that, judgment of conviction has been taken exception to,

but as appeal is of the year 2026, it may not be heard earlier. For

above reasons, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is

urged for.
                                                     CriAppln-3865-2026
                                  -3-

3.    Learned APP also took this Court through the testimony of

informant/injured as well as medical expert PW5 and read out the

nature and number of injuries noted by this expert. He pointed out

that medical expert has opined that injuries to be possible by axe.

According to him, injured witness account finds support from medical

evidence and offence being serious, he opposed relief of suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.



4.    After considering the above submissions and on going through

the papers, it appears that before the trial court, case of prosecution

was rested on the evidence of as many as 11 witnesses. PW1 seems to

be the injured and his father seems to have set law in motion. Gist of

his testimony is that, there used to be quarrels on account of share in

the well water and incident in question seems to be of 07.07.2026. He

deposed that, while he was proceeding to his field, he spotted accused

no.1 Ashok, one Shankar, accused no.2 Arun and his mother accused

no.3 Sumitra were busy in agricultural operation and were cutting

grass by use of axe. Informant claims to have objected to the removal

of grass over common bandh and at that time it is alleged that,

accused Arun dealt blow by axe on the left arm, right knee, ribs, thigh

and forehead of PW1. According to him, the said incident took place

when accused Ashok had caught hold of him.
                                                     CriAppln-3865-2026
                                  -4-




5.    PW4, i.e. mother of PW1, has also narrated the incident

specifying the roles of applicants Ashok and Arun. PW5, who

examined informant, has narrated seven injuries comprising of three

fracture injuries and four CLWs on left thigh, forehead, right side

abdomen and right knee. PW7 seems to be the pancha to

memorandum of disclosure and recovery of axe.



6.    Therefore, roles of both accused are clearly coming on record,

and that too from the oral account of injured witness. As submitted,

there is use of axe. On facilitation by accused Ashok, accused Arun

inflicted blows with axe on various parts of body. Resultantly, this

Court does not find it a fit case to grant the relief as prayed. Hence,

following order :

                               ORDER

                    The Application is dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…