Bombay High Court

BHAGWAN NARAYAN BHALEversusNAMDEO RAMDAS DEVKAR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court held that the trial judge correctly acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and the evidence was unreliable, thus dismissing the appeal and condonation of delay.

Summary

The State sought to condone a 60‑day delay in filing an appeal against the acquittal of four accused in a murder case and also sought leave to appeal. The trial judge had acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, a confessional statement by one accused, and testimony of an informant, all of which the High Court found unreliable or improperly recorded. The Court held that the informant’s version was inconsistent, the confessional statement could not be recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete, warranting a benefit of doubt. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and leave to appeal was dismissed, and the request for assistance by the complainant was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the trial judge erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the prosecution evidence.
Whether the 60‑day delay in filing an appeal can be condoned.
Whether the confessional statement recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate is admissible under Section 164 of the CrPC.
Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 164
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302, 34

Subjects

acquittal
condonation of delay
circumstantial evidence
confessional statement
Section 164 CrPC
benefit of doubt
criminal appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:35506
901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1138 OF 2020
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1212 O 2026
IN APPLN/1138/2020

THE STATE O MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
NAMDEO RAMDAS DEVKAR AND OTHERS

….
Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP or the Applicant-State
Mr. C.C. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 3
Mr. Datta Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. N. N. Bhagwat, Advocate for Assist to APP
….

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 11/08/2026

PER COURT :
1. Criminal Application No.1138 of 2026 has been filed by the
appellant-State seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in challenging
the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial
Judge”) on 01/10/2019 in Sessions Case No.155 of 2013. Criminal
Application No.1212 of 2026 has been filed by the original complainant,
Bhagwan Narayan Bhale, i.e. the father of the deceased, seeking
permission to assist the prosecution. By the impugned judgment and
order dated 01/10/2019 passed in the aforesaid case, the learned trial
Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused of the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

VS Maind/ Page|1
901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 .

2. According to the prosecution case, in the intervening night of
09/02/2013 and 10/02/2013, all the respondents-accused took the
deceased, Amol Bhale, in a car and thereafter committed his murder by
throttling him at some place in village Madke. Thereafter, all the accused
carried the dead body of Amol Bhale to the vicinity of Walunj,
Ahmednagar and placed it beneath the bridge over the Sina River. They
then poured diesel over the dead body of Amol Bhale and set it on fire,
burning it to the extent of 96%. According to the prosecution, all the
accused committed the murder of deceased Amol Bhale on account of
business rivalry with Namdeo Ramdas Devkar, with whom the deceased
was earlier working. Subsequently, the deceased had started his own
business, thereby causing a loss to the business of accused Namdeo
Devkar.

3. The learned APP strongly submitted that the learned trial Judge
has acquitted all the accused without properly appreciating the evidence
on record and by ignoring the confession made by one of the accused as
well as the last-seen theory. Moreover, the learned trial Judge has
discarded the trustworthy and reliable evidence of the informant in the
context of the circumstantial evidence on record. He pointed out that
incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of accused No.3,
Sandip Divte and that his confession was also ignored. According to the
learned APP, the prosecution has established a complete chain of
circumstances leading to the guilt of all the accused; however, the
learned trial Judge has erroneously acquitted them. The learned counsel
for the informant also supported the submissions advanced by the
learned APP.

VS Maind/ Page|2
901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 .

4. Heard the learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the
informant. We have also perused the notes of evidence and the
impugned judgment.

5. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the actual incident of murder.
However, the prosecution relies upon certain circumstances which,
according to it, point towards the guilt of the accused. The
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution can be summarized as
follows:
A) There was rivalry between the deceased and
accused Namdeo Devkar and Sandip Divte.
B) In the night of the incident, the deceased was seen
in the company of the accused.
C) The Investigating Officer recovered receipts (Exhibits
94 and 95) from a hotelier and a pair of chappals
from the vicinity of village Madke at the instance of
accused Namdeo Devkar. Moreover, a plastic can,
matchbox and rope were recovered from beneath the
bridge over the Sina River at the instance of accused
Sandip Devkar. He also made a confessional
statement before PW-7, Bhaskar Bhos, the Special
Judicial Magistrate, stating that the deceased was
murdered by the co-accused by throttling him.
D) The accused have not offered any plausible
explanation regarding the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them.

VS Maind/ Page|3
901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 .

6. Admittedly, the death of deceased Amol Bhale was homicidal, as he
had sustained a head injury and extensive burn injuries. The dead body
of Amol Bhale was burnt to the extent of 96%. As such, there can be no
dispute that the deceased was murdered. However, in order to connect
the present respondents-accused with the murder of the deceased, the
prosecution has come forward with a case that the deceased was earlier
working with accused Namdeo Devkar. When the informant, Bhagwan
Bhale (PW-3), had approached accused Namdeo Devkar and requested
him to increase the salary of his son, Namdeo Devkar refused to do so,
resulting in the deceased leaving the job. It also cannot be seriously
disputed that thereafter the deceased started a similar business under
the name and style of “Sai Net Cafe”.

7. According to the informant, the deceased had gone with the
accused to Shani Shingnapur and did not return thereafter and his dead
body was subsequently found. However, though the informant stated so
before the learned trial Judge, in his cross-examination, he admitted that
the facts stated by him in accordance with the prosecution case do not
find place in his statement. Thus, it appears that the informant has
improved his version while deposing before the Court. Therefore, the
evidence of the informant appears to be unreliable, particularly when he
admitted that there was no quarrel between himself and the accused
prior to lodging the missing report. This glaring admission on the part of
the informant is certainly fatal to the prosecution case, as there was no
apparent motive for the accused to commit the murder of Amol Bhale.
Moreover, it has also come in the evidence of the informant that two to
three days prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between Amol
Bhale and one Manoj Andhale, during which the deceased had sustained
an injury to his head. Thus, the possibility of the involvement of a third
person, other than the accused, in the incident cannot be ruled out.

VS Maind/ Page|4
901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 .

8. The prosecution case also rests upon the alleged confessional
statement made by accused Sandip Divte before the Special Judicial
Magistrate, wherein he allegedly admitted that they had committed the
murder of the deceased. However, the evidence of the said Special
Judicial Magistrate, Bhaskar Bhos (PW-7), is also not convincing, mainly
because it is inconsistent with the statements of Bappa Raut and
Mahesh Sonawane at Exhibits 68 and 69. Moreover, Bhaskar Bhos (PW-
7) has specifically stated that being a Special Judicial Magistrate, he was
not empowered to record the confessional statement of accused Sandip
Divte under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from
this, the said confessional statement indicates that on the night of
09/02/2013, at about 7:45 p.m., accused Sandip Divte called Amol
Bhale and informed him that he, along with the other accused, intended
to go to Shani Shingnapur and asked him to accompany them. However,
the said statement does not mention that the friends of Amol Bhale,
namely, Bappa Raut and Mahesh Sonawane, had also come to the house
of Sandip Divte. Therefore, the discrepancies between the statements of
those persons at Exhibits 68 and 69 and the alleged confessional
statement of accused Sandip Divte create a doubt about the prosecution
case that Amol Bhale was last seen in the company of the accused by
those two persons. Thus, the last-seen theory put forth by the
prosecution is also doubtful.

9. Moreover, the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance
of the accused is also doubtful. Initially, despite a search of the area
beneath the Sina Bridge, nothing incriminating was found. It therefore
appears that the subsequent recovery of the alleged incriminating articles
does not inspire confidence, particularly when the informant, Ashok
Khaire (PW-1) and the Investigating Officer, Milind Patil (PW-9), have
stated that they had searched the nearby area, including the bridge, for

VS Maind/ Page|5
901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 .

any incriminating material, but had not found anything suspicious.
Further, the alleged incriminating articles appear to have been recovered
from an open place accessible to all and from the nature of those articles
the same could have been easily available at any such open place.

10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the
prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances
leading to the guilt of the accused. While considering an appeal against
acquittal, merely because another view is possible is not sufficient to
warrant interference. From the evidence on record, we find that the
learned trial Judge has taken a possible view by properly appreciating
the evidence and has thereafter extended the benefit of doubt to the
respondents-accused. Considering all these aspects, no interference is
required in the impugned judgment and order. Since we do not find any
substance in the application seeking leave to appeal, no question arises
for condoning the delay as sought by the prosecution. Accordingly, the
Criminal Application seeking condonation of delay, along with the
application seeking leave to appeal, stands dismissed.

11. In view of the disposal of the Criminal Application seeking
condonation of delay and the application seeking leave to appeal, the
application seeking permission to assist the learned APP also stands
disposed of.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE

VS Maind/ Page|6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…