MACHINDRA UTTAM KOLHEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                               1 of 12              901-APEAL-1311-2023
                    Sagar Magar

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2023


SAGAR              Machindra Uttam Kolhe
SANTOSH
MAGAR              Age:- 58 Years, Occ. Retired,
Digitally signed
by SAGAR
SANTOSH
                   R/at:- Survey No. 7/8/2,
MAGAR
Date: 2026.08.29
18:21:34 +0530     CTS No. 947, Dattaprasad Niwas,
                   Tapovan Road, Opp. Pushpanjali,
                   Pimprigaon, Pune.
                                                              … Appellant

                          Versus

                   1. State of Maharashtra.
                   Through Shikrapur Police Station,
                   District Pune,

                   2. Mahendra @ Mahesh Vishnu Kolhe,
                   Age :- 40 Years, Occ :- Agriculturist,
                   R/at:- Kolhe Mal, Talegaon Dhamdhere,
                   Tal, :- Shirur, Dist.:- Pune.

                   3. Sadashiv Vithoba Kolhe,
                   Age :- 77 Years, Occ. :- Agriculturist,
                   R/at:- Kolhe Mal, Talegaon Dhamdhere,
                   Tal.:- Shirur, Dist.:- Pune.
                                                              ... Respondents
                                              __________

                   Mr. Amey Deshpande for the Appellant.
                   Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                   Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Mr. Samay Pawar for the Respondent Nos.
                   2 and 3.
                                               __________
                              2 of 12             901-APEAL-1311-2023


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

                 DATE     : 25 AUGUST 2026

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

1)         The Appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section

372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, CrPC). The

Appellant is the son of the deceased Uttam Kolhe. The Respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 were the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions

Case No. 606 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

The learned Judge vide the Judgment and Order dated 4th August

2023 acquitted both of them from the charges of commission of

offence punishable under Section 304 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, IPC). Being aggrieved, the Appellant has

preferred the present appeal as an aggrieved person because his

father had died in the incident.


2)         Heard Mr. Amey Deshpande, learned Counsel for the

Appellant, Ms. Gauri Rao, learned APP for the Respondent No. 1-

State and Mr. Satyavrat Joshi with Mr. Samay Pawar, learned

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
                             3 of 12                 901-APEAL-1311-2023


3)         The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-


           The accused and the deceased were related and they

were from the same village. They had their agricultural land

adjacent to each other. The incident had occurred because of some

petty quarrel regarding the responsibility to cut a neem tree which

had grown on the common boundary between the two agricultural

fields. There was a quarrel between the two families. The deceased

Uttam Kolhe tried to intervene. There are allegations that the

Respondent No. 3 Sadashiv Kolhe (Original Accused No. 2) pushed

him because of which Uttam Kolhe fell down. He was motionless.

He was taken to hospital. He was declared dead. On this basis,

offence was registered at Shikrapur Police Station vide C.R. No. 96

of 2015. The incident occurred at about 7.00 a.m. on 31 st March

2015 and the FIR was lodged at 12.30 p.m. on the same day. The

accused No. 1 Mahendra was arrested during the course of the

investigation. The Accused No. 2 Sadashiv Kolhe had obtained

anticipatory bail. The dead body was sent for post mortem

examination. The cause of death was mentioned as ‘fracture of

coronary artery rupture due to hypertension (intrapericardial)’.
                             4 of 12                901-APEAL-1311-2023


The FIR was lodged under Section 304 of the IPC. After

completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the

case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge was

framed under Section 304 read with 34 of the IPC.


           During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses,

including two eye witnesses, two medical officers and the

Investigating Officer. The defence of both the accused was of total

denial. In addition, it was the case that the deceased had died due

to heart attack in his own house and, taking advantage of the

situation, this false case was lodged against the accused. The

learned Judge, considered the evidence and from the record

reached the conclusion that there was neither intention nor

knowledge to commit the offence resulting in the death of

deceased Uttam Kolhe. It was further observed that no offence was

made out. Hence, both of them were acquitted. The Appellant has

challenged the said finding and judgment before this Court.


4)         There were two eye witnesses examined by the

prosecution. PW 1, Subhash Kolhe, had lodged the FIR. He
                             5 of 12                901-APEAL-1311-2023


deposed that, the deceased Uttam Kolhe was his paternal uncle. He

was residing opposite to his house. Uttam was residing with his

family members. PW 1 and his family were cultivating their

agricultural land. The land of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 was

adjacent to their land. There was a common boundary between

their land. On 31st March 2015, PW 1 was standing near his cattle

shed. The Accused No. 1 Mahendra came there. He asked PW 1 to

cut the branch of the neem tree which was in front of his house.

PW 1 suggested to the Accused No. 1 that they should call the

Government Surveyor for measurement and, if it was decided that

the tree stood in his area, then he would cut the branch, but if it

was in the land of the Accused No. 1, he should cut the tree.

Accused No. 1 did not listen. He started quarreling. He pushed PW

1 on the ground. PW 1’s wife and uncle Uttam Kolhe came there

on hearing the noise. Accused No. 2 Sadashiv also came there.

Uttam Kolhe told them not to quarrel. PW 1 further deposed that

the Accused No. 2 Sadashiv caught Uttam’s collar and gave kicks

and fist blows. He pushed him. Uttam fell on the ground. PW 1

further deposed that Uttam lay unconscious on the ground. PW 1’s
                             6 of 12                 901-APEAL-1311-2023


wife, son and daughter-in-law came there and took Uttam Kolhe to

Dr. Kadam’s dispensary in the tempo of one Jalindar. The doctor

examined him and declared him dead. After that, PW 1 lodged this

complaint. The FIR is produced on record at Exh. 16.


           In the cross-examination, he was asked about their

relation and it was brought on record that the first informant’s

family, the deceased’s family and the accused’s family, were all are

related. The neem tree was standing at that spot since ten to

eleven years and nobody ever attempted to cut it. He accepted that

appropriate permission is necessary to cut the tree. He deposed

that Uttam Kolhe was about Seventy-five to Eighty years of age,

but he was not ailing. Some omissions from his FIR were put to

him. It was not explained as to why those statements were missing

from his FIR. Those omissions are proved by the defence through

the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer who had

registered the FIR. The FIR is produced on record as Exh. 16.

There is no mention in the FIR that Uttam Kolhe was assaulted

with kicks and fist blows. There is also reference that the Accused

No. 2 Sadashiv had pushed Uttam on one side, because of which
                              7 of 12                901-APEAL-1311-2023


Uttam Kolhe fell down.


5)         PW 2, Sanjeevani Kolhe, was the other eye witness

examined by the prosecution. She accepted that, the accused were

relatives. On 31st March 2015 at about 7.00 a.m. she was cooking

in the kitchen. Her husband Subhash (PW 1) was outside the

house. Accused No. 1 Mahesh came there and gave shouts for PW

2 to come out of the house. He told her that there was some

obstruction on his side of the boundary because of the stones on

PW 2’s boundary. He also asked to cut the neem tree standing on

the boundary. He caught her husband and pushed him on the

ground. He caught her wrist, slapped her and pushed her. Uttam

Kolhe was the brother of her father-in-law and had come there.

Accused No. 2 Sadashiv followed him, who held Uttam’s collar and

pushed him. Because of that Uttam fell on the ground. He was

motionless. PW 2 and others took him to Dr. Kadam’s hospital,

where he was declared dead.


           In the cross-examination, she accepted that there was

no dispute regarding cultivation of the lands. She accepted that all
                             8 of 12                901-APEAL-1311-2023


of them were residing in the respective houses peacefully. The tree

was standing since long. At the time of the incident, Uttam was 80

years old. She did not know whether he was suffering from blood

pressure. She accepted that Uttam Kolhe was taken to the hospital

in the tempo of one Jalindar, who was brother of the Accused No.

1 Mahesh and nephew of the Accused No. 2 Sadashiv.


6)         PW 3, Dr. Laxman Kadam, had examined Uttam and

had declared him dead. In his cross-examination, he stated that at

Uttam’s age, the body becomes weak and if a patient is suffering

from blood pressure, due to high blood pressure such situation

could occur.


7)         PW 4, Dr. Deepak Dhavale, had conducted the post

mortem examination at around 12.30 p.m. on 31st March 2015.

There was haemorrhage all over the under scalp. The final cause of

death was mentioned as ‘coronary artery rupture due to

hypertension (intrapericardial)’. The post mortem examination

report is produced on record at Exh. 26. The post mortem report

was not disputed by the defence. There is no external injury
                              9 of 12                 901-APEAL-1311-2023


mentioned in the post mortem report. There was only internal

injury mentioned. PW 4 further deposed that, if there was a

quarrel, there was a possibility of hypertension. If a person

collapsed due to anxiety in the quarrel, then there was a possibility

of hypertension, haemorrhage and rupture. In the cross-

examination, he accepted that the opinion which he had given was

correct in respect of natural death.


8)          PW 6, P.I. Shrikant Kankale, was the Investigating

Officer. He deposed about the registration of the FIR. He had

conducted the spot panchanama, and he had recorded the

statements of witnesses. He arrested the Accused No. 1 on 6th April

2015. Accused No. 2 had obtained anticipatory bail. He had sent

the articles for CA analysis. In the cross-examination, he proved

the omissions from the FIR as mentioned earlier.


            This in short is the evidence led by the prosecution.


9)          Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that,

though there may not be any intention to commit the offence of

culpable homicide, the accused definitely had knowledge that
                                10 of 12              901-APEAL-1311-2023


because of this act and because of the old age of the deceased, he

was likely to suffer death. He submitted that, if it is held that the

offence of culpable homicide is not made out against the Accused,

then at least offence punishable under Sections 323 and 335 of the

IPC are made out. He submitted that the learned Judge committed

error in acquitting the accused. The finding is perverse and,

therefore, this Court needs to interfere. He submitted that the

judgment of acquittal is required to be set aside.


10)         Learned APP supported the contention of learned

Counsel for the Appellant. However, she conceded that the State

has not preferred any appeal.


11)         Mr. Samay Pawar and Shri. Joshi, learned Counsel for

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that, after reading the

evidence as a whole, no offence is made out. There are major

omissions from the police statement affecting the deposition of PW

1. They submitted that there could not be any intention or even

knowledge attributable to either of the accused. The FIR did not

mention that Accused No. 2 gave kicks and fist blows to the
                              11 of 12                901-APEAL-1311-2023


deceased.


12)         We have considered these submissions and perused the

impugned judgment. We do not find any perversity in the

judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge. He has taken a

possible view. We do not find infirmity wherein this Court should

interfere and reverse the finding of acquittal.


13)         The medical evidence in the present case makes it clear

that the deceased had died due to rupture of artery. The medical

officer has accepted that it could be in the nature of natural death.

It is quite clear that there were no external injuries. The

haemorrhage inside the scalp was a result of rupture of the artery,

which could be caused due to anxiety and hypertension as deposed

by the Medical Officer. At the highest, it can be said that there was

a quarrel between the two families. That was the reason why the

deceased could have suffered from hypertension, resulting in

rupture of artery. Significantly, there is no external injury. Merely

giving a push without the requisite intention or knowledge can

hardly attract ingredients of any of the offences. The act does not
                             12 of 12                 901-APEAL-1311-2023


fulfil any of the ingredients of Section 299 of IPC which defines

culpable homicide. Even otherwise, the act attributed to the

Accused No. 2 does not even attract the ingredients of Sections

323 and 325 of the IPC as was argued by the learned Counsel for

the Appellant. The Accused No. 1 is not attributed any role. He

had picked up a quarrel with PW 1 and 2 for reason of

responsibility to cut the tree. There is no allegation that he had

touched the deceased. It is also significant that the deceased was

taken to the hospital in the tempo of Accused No. 1’s brother and

the nephew of the Accused No. 2.


14)        Considering all these aspects, we do not find any merit

in the appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.


15)        The bail bonds executed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and

3 stand discharged.



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