VIJAY @ DHANANJAY SRIKANT SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-KOL:8805-DB

                                                                         CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.352 OF 2023
                                               WITH
                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.803 OF 2025
               Vijay @ Dhananjay Srikant Shinde
               Age : 46 Yrs. Occ : Labour
               R/at Joshi-Galli, Old Sarati Road
               Akluj, Malshiras, Solapur                            ...Appellant.
                       Versus
               State of Maharashtra
               Through Akluj Police Station
               Vide their CR. No. 141/2016
               At present at Yervada Central Jail                   ...Respondent.
                                                ——————
               Mr. Tejas Mane a/w Sachin Pawar i/b Mr. Ravindra Jadhav for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganpathy, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                ——————
                                                  Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                          Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                           Reserved on : August 29, 2026.
                                         Pronounced on : September 11, 2026

               JUDGMENT : (PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE J.)


               1.        This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

               Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against the Judgment and Order

               dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

               Malshiras in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2016, convicting and sentencing the

               Appellant as follows:

                        “1.   Accused Vijay @ Dhananjay Srikant Shinde is convicted under


               Harish                              1 of 14
                                                               CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


         Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence
         punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and he is
         sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-
         (in words five thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount,
         he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
         2.       Accused Vijay @ Dhananjay Srikant Shinde is convicted under
         Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence
         punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and he is
         sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay
         fine of Rs.1000/- (in words one thousand only), in default of payment
         of fine amount, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
         3.      …..   …..    …..    …..    …..   …..    …..    …..    …..”
         4.      …..   …..    …..    …..    …..   …..    …..    …..    …..”
         5.      …..   …..    …..    …..    …..   …..    …..    …..    …..”
         6.      …..   …..    …..    …..    …..   …..    …..    …..    …..”
         7.      …..   …..    …..    …..    …..   …..    …..    …..    …..”



2.        The prosecution's case as revealed from the police report is as

under:

(a)       The informant is the wife of deceased Rajendra Dattatray Chavan

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The sister of deceased by

name Shobha was married to the Appellant. The Appellant used to ill-

treat his wife, i.e. the sister of deceased. Every time the deceased used

to give understanding to the Appellant in that regard. About one (1)

month prior to the date of incident, the Appellant dropped his wife to

the house of deceased along with the children. The Appellant used to

come to the house of deceased and harass his wife. On 03.04.2016, the

Appellant and his mother had come to the house of deceased to take his



Harish                                 2 of 14
                                                      CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


wife, i.e. the sister of deceased along with him. The deceased did not

allow them to take his sister with them. On 04.04.2016, the Appellant

left the house of deceased along with his two children. However, he

returned in the evening along with his two children. Quarrel took place

between the Appellant and his wife. In the evening, the Appellant left

with his two children.

(b)      In the night of 07.04.2016, the deceased came home around 11:30

pm. Thereafter, the deceased and the informant went to sleep in the

courtyard. The informant heard the voice "vkbZ xa". The informant woke

up from the sleep and saw the Appellant assaulting her husband in the

head with the stone and thereafter the Appellant fled. The informant

raised alarm. The in-laws of the informant and the neighbors got up and

came to the spot of incident. Some of the villagers removed the

deceased to the hospital for treatment. The doctor declared the

deceased as brought dead. In the morning of 08.04.2016, the informant

went to the Akluj Police Station and lodged the report against the

Appellant that, he murdered her husband. Crime bearing No. 141 of

2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section

302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, 'IPC').

(c)      The investigation was conducted. The inquest was done and the

dead body was sent for post-mortem. The spot panchanama was done.

The statements of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant came to be


Harish                           3 of 14
                                                       CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


arrested. The seized articles including the clothes of the Appellant were

sent to the chemical laboratory. The post-mortem report and the

reports of the Chemical Analyzer (for short, 'CA') were collected. On

completion of the investigation, the Appellant came to be charge-

sheeted.

(d)       As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the committal order was

passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned trial Court framed the

Charge against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section

302 and 506 of IPC below Exhibit-2, to which the Appellant pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the charge, the prosecution

examined the following witnesses:

         PW1-Sonali Rajendra Chavhan - Informant and wife of
         deceased.
         PW2-Parubai Dattu Chavhan - Mother of deceased.
         PW3-Shobha Vijay Shinde - Wife of the Appellant.
         PW4-Jalindar Shankar Waghmbare - Panch for the inquest and
         the spot.
         PW5-Dr. Manisha Madhukar Kadam - Medical Officer who
         performed the post-mortem.
         PW6-Mahesh Hanmant Vidhate - Police Officer attached to the
         Akluj Police Station who conducted the investigation.


3.        The relevant documents such as the report/FIR, panchanamas, the

PM report, the CA reports etc. are brought on record by the prosecution



Harish                             4 of 14
                                                      CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. After the prosecution filed

the evidence closure purusis, the statement of the Appellant came to be

recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The

Appellant stated that, due to the previous quarrel he was falsely

implicated. After hearing both the sides and appreciating the evidence

available on record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned

Judgment and Order.

4.       Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP for

the State. Scrutinized the evidence on record.

(a)      It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that the

prosecution's case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The chain of

circumstances is incomplete. The sole witness identifying the Appellant

as the assaulter is an interested witness and her testimony suffers from

material improvements and omissions. As the chain of circumstances is

not established and if two views are possible on the basis of the

evidence on record, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted.

There is no evidence in respect of discovery of any article at the instance

of the Appellant. The evidence on record is not sufficient to maintain

the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and the same be set

aside. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgments in (1)

Hanumant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,[AIR 1952 SC 343], (2)

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1984 SC


Harish                           5 of 14
                                                       CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


1622], (3) Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Another vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh, [AIR 2006 SC 1656].

(b)      It is submitted by learned APP that, the wife of the deceased had

witnessed the incident and she is examined by the prosecution. Her

testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that she is the interested

witness. The crime was registered on the report of the said witness. The

case is based on the evidence of the eye witness and the other evidence

led by the prosecution corroborate the evidence of eye witness. The CA

reports show the human blood on the seized articles. The stone used in

the crime was seized from the spot of incident. The cause of death was

due to head injury. The prosecution proved the charge and the learned

trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted

and sentenced the Appellant. No interference is called for in the

impugned Judgment. In support of her submissions, she relied on the

judgments in (1) Ravi vs. State represented by Inspector of Police

[(2008) 15 SCC 115], (2) State through the Inspector of Police vs. Laly

alias Manikandan and Another, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424].

5.       When the Charge is for the offence punishable under Section 302

of the IPC, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to establish that

the death was homicidal. The evidence of PW4-Jalindar Shankar

Waghmbare shows that, on 08.04.2016, he was called by the police for

the inquest in the Shivamrut Colony. The dead body was shown by the


Harish                            6 of 14
                                                           CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


wife of deceased. There was injury on the head of the body. The inquest

at Exhibit-49 was prepared by the police and he signed on the same.

Except the suggestion that, the inquest was not prepared in his

presence, nothing has come in the cross-examination so as to discard

the evidence of this witness in respect of inquest. The evidence of PW6 -

Mahesh Hanmant Vidhate shows that, he was posted as the Assistant

Police Inspector at the Akluj police station on 08.04.2016. On that date,

he was directed to visit the place of occurrence. The informant was

present on the spot of occurrence. He prepared the inquest at Exhibit-

49 which was signed by himself and the panchas. His evidence shows

that, the dead body was referred for the post-mortem. He denied the

suggestion that false inquest was prepared. The inquest below Exhibit-

49 corroborate the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses.

6.        The evidence of PW5-Dr. Manisha Madhukar Kadam shows that,

on 08.04.2016, she was attached to the Sub-District Hospital, Akluj as

the Medical Officer. On that date, the dead body was referred for the

post-mortem. The dead body was of Rajendra Dattatraya Chavhan. She

performed the post-mortem. She found the following injuries on the

body:

         1.    Abrasion of 6 x 4 c.m. over frontal region about left
               eyebrow,
         2.    C.L.W. of 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. over lateral end of left eyebrow,



Harish                              7 of 14
                                                            CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


         3.    Under the scalf haematoma 15 x 20 c.m. over left tempt
               fronto partial region,
         4.    Circular haematoma of 3 x 3 c.m. over right frontal
               region,
         5.    Crack fracture of left frontal bone noted,
         6.    Massive intra cranial haemorage.


Her evidence further shows that, the cause of death was head injury.

The PM report below Exhibit-55 is brought on record in the evidence of

this medical officer. The evidence further show that, the advance death

certificate below Exhibit-56 was issued by her. In response to the letter

from the police station, she gave opinion that, the death was possible

by use of the stone weighing 13.540 kg if hit on the head. She denied

that the findings in the post-mortem report were incorrect. She denied

the suggestion that the death was due to heart and kidney failure.

Nothing material has come in the cross-examination to discard the

testimony of the medical officer.

7.        Nothing has come in the cross-examination of the aforesaid

witnesses examined by the prosecution, even remotely, that the death

which not homicidal. The evidence of PW4- Jalindar Shankar Waghmbar

shows that, the article-D (stone) was seized by the police from the spot

of incident which was the house of deceased. From the cross-

examination of the witnesses it is clear that the homicidal death of the

informant’s husband is not seriously disputed by the defence.


Harish                              8 of 14
                                                      CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


Considering the above discussed evidence on record, without hesitation

it can be held that, the prosecution proved that the death of informant's

husband was homicidal.

8.       The evidence on record goes to show that, there is no dispute on

the following aspects:

(a) Deceased was the husband of PW1- Sonali Rajendra Chavhan, the

informant.

(b) Deceased was the brother-in-law of the Appellant.

9.       The prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimony of PW1-

Sonali Rajendra Chavhan. Her evidence shows that, she was residing

with the deceased, her two children, mother-in-law and father-in-law in

Shivamrut Colony at Vizori. In the night of 07.04.2016 at 11:30, the

deceased came home from work and after collecting water from the

Gram Panchayat tap went to sleep in the courtyard. She also went to

bed alongside him. She heard the noise "vkbZ xa" and saw that, the

Appellant was present in the courtyard on the side of deceased's head.

She saw deceased was writhing and blood was oozing from his nose and

mouth. She saw the Appellant going from the backside of her house.

She raised alarm. Her mother-in-law (PW2-Parubai Dattu Chavhan),

neighbours rushed on the spot of incident. The four-wheeler was called

and deceased was taken to hospital. Doctor examined him and declared

dead. The dead body was brought home. She went to the Akluj Police


Harish                            9 of 14
                                                       CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


Station and lodged the report below Exhibit-37. She further deposed of

conducting the spot panchanama by the police and seizure of the

articles from the spot of incident. The police took the dead body for

postmortem and thereafter the dead body was handed over to her for

last rites. She deposed of recording her supplementary statement and

statement before the learned Magistrate. She identified the clothes and

the stones which were seized during the course of investigation.

10.      PW1-   Sonali   Rajendra    Chavhan   was   cross-examined.   The

topography of the place of incident is brought on record. It shows that

towards the east of her house there is open space around 2 to 2 1/2 acres,

towards south there is a poultry farm, there was Bhatghar canal behind

her house, one road which goes towards the canal, her house was a hut

having one door at the front side, there was makeshift bathroom

towards the south, at some distance there was the hut where her in-

laws were residing, there was drainage line towards east of her hut, and

there were two rooms belonging to Shivamrut Milk towards the north of

her hut.

11.      In the cross-examination, it is brought on record that, her

evidence that she heard the noise and she saw the accused was

standing beside head of deceased and the deceased was writhing, was

an improvement from her previous statement. The prosecution has not

examined the police officer who recorded the report of this witness and


Harish                              10 of 14
                                                      CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


therefore the defence was deprived of proving the said omission. The

said improvement/omission was vital and goes to the root of the

prosecution's case. There is no evidence on record to show that, there

was source of light at the spot of incident so as to clearly notice the

assaulter by PW1- Sonali Rajendra Chavhan. The cross-examination of

PW6-Mahesh Hanmant Vidhate, the Investigating Officer, shows that,

the spot panchanama below Exhibit-50 was silent in respect of the

electric supply at the time of the incident. Undisputedly, the incident is

of midnight. The spot of incident was the courtyard and from the above

evidence of PW1-Sonali Rajendra Chavhan, it is clear that the spot of

incident was the open place accessible to all. The same gets fortified

from the sketch of the spot enclosed to the spot panchanama.

12.      The evaluation of the evidence of PW1- Sonali Rajendra Chavhan

creates reasonable doubt as to whether she actually saw the Appellant

on the spot of incident. Considering the improvement/omission in her

evidence in respect of presence of the Appellant on the spot of incident

at the time of the incident, her evidence in respect of presence of

Appellant on the spot, is required to be seen with doubt. The evidence

of PW1- Sonali Rajendra Chavhan do not give the required assurance

that, it was the Appellant who was the assaulter and non other. Her

evidence cannot form the basis to establish the involvement of the

Appellant in the crime.


Harish                          11 of 14
                                                    CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


13.      The evidence of PW-6 Mahesh Hanmant Vidhate, the Investigating

Officer, shows that, he did not obtain the fingerprint from the stone

seized during the spot panchanama. His evidence shows that, the seized

muddemal including the clothes of the Appellant were sent for

examination to the Chemical Laboratory. The CA report in respect of the

articles is at Exhibit-73, which shows that, human blood was found on

the articles and the ABO grouping of the blood on the clothes of the

Appellant was inconclusive. The CA report at Exhibit-74 shows that, the

blood group of the deceased could not be determined as the result was

inconclusive. The CA report at Exhibit-75 goes to show that, the blood

group of the Appellant was "B". Thus, the blood stain on the clothes of

the Appellant would be of no assistance to the prosecution to prove the

charge.

14.      The prosecution has attributed the motive to the Appellant in

commission of the crime that, the wife of the Appellant, who was the

sister of the deceased, was protected by the deceased and the

deceased used to give understanding to the Appellant and therefore

the Appellant committed the murder. Though, the prosecution

examined the wife of Appellant as PW3- Shobha Vijay Shinde, her

evidence shows that, she did not support the case of prosecution in any

manner. Though cross-examined, nothing came on record so as to

further the case of prosecution or to establish the motive. The evidence


Harish                          12 of 14
                                                      CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


of mother of deceased, PW2-Parubai Dattu Chavhan, is of no assistance

to the prosecution, being hearsay in nature. Even the evidence of PW1-

Sonali Rajendra Chavhan in respect of ill-treatment by the Appellant to

his wife is hearsay as her evidence nowhere shows that, she herself

witnessed the ill-treatment to PW3-Shobha by the Appellant. With this

evidence on record, the prosecution failed to establish that the

Appellant had the motive to commit the crime.

15.      There cannot be any dispute in respect of the settled legal

position on the aspect of circumstantial evidence that, it should form

the complete chain so as to exclude every possible hypothesis except

the one to be proved. In Ravi vs. State (supra), the witness No. 1

categorically stated that, there was light in the nearby church and the

street light near primary school were burning at the time of occurrence

and he could see the occurrence in the light and the evidence was found

to be cogent and credible by the trial Court. In Laly alias Manikandan

(supra), the evidence of the eyewitness was found to be credible and

reliable and observed that it would be safe to record the conviction on

the sole testimony of the eyewitness. The said judgments relied upon by

the learned APP, in our considered view, are of no assistance in the case

at hand in the light of the re-appreciation of the evidence on record. The

prosecution failed to prove the charge with cogent and concrete

evidence. According to the Appellant, he was falsely implicated due to


Harish                          13 of 14
                                                         CRAPEAL-352-2023.doc


the previous quarrel. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction

recorded by the learned trial Court requires interference and the

Appellant is entitled for acquittal. Hence the order.

                                       ORDER

         a)   The Appeal is allowed.

         b)   The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned
              Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras in Sessions Case No.
              27/2016 by Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2017 is
              hereby quashed and set aside.

         c)   The Appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable
              under Section 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
              1860.

         d)   The Appellant is behind bars. He be released forthwith, if
              not required in any other offence.

         e)   The fine amount, if paid by the Appellant, be refunded.



16.       In view of disposal of Appeal, pending Application, if any, stands

disposed of accordingly.



 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                         [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Harish                             14 of 14