SANDIP ALIAS SONYA BHAGWAN CHOUDHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH POLICE STATION INSPECTOR CITY POLICE STATION PARANDA

2026:BHC-AUG:39604-DB
                                              (1)
                                                          Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2026
                                        IN
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.291 OF 2026


            Sandip @ Sonya s/o Bhagwan Choudhari,
            Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agril.,
            R/o.: Dhagpimpri, Tq. Paranda,
            District : Osmanabad                         …..         APPLICANT
                                                               (Original Accused)

                 VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra
            Through : Police Station Inspector,
            City Police Station, Paranda
            Tq. Paranda, District : Dharashiv            ….         RESPONDENT

                                              ….
            Advocate for the applicant :      Mr. Satej S. Jadhav
            A.P.P. for Respondent/State :     Ms. D. S. Jape
                                              ….

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

                             RESERVED ON            : 07/08/2026
                             PRONOUNCED ON          : 27/08/2026

            ORDER:-


            1.   Heard rival submissions.



            2.   By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused

            in Sessions Case No.3 of 2024, is seeking suspension of his

            substantive sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned
                                  (2)
                                             Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt
Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, District Dharashiv (hereinafter

referred to as “the learned trial Judge”), during the pendency of the

appeal and his release on bail.


3.   As per the prosecution case, on 30/10/2023, Aishwarya

Ananta Madne (PW-9), daughter of the informant Ananta Bhau

Madne (PW-2), had gone to the Mahadeo Temple for a religious

function in village Dhagpimpri in the evening along with her uncle,

Vitthal Bhau Madane, i.e. the brother of the informant and the

deceased in the present case. It is alleged that about ten years prior

to the incident, the deceased Vitthal had kidnapped the sister of the

applicant-accused. At the relevant time, the deceased had come to

village Dhagpimpri to attend the proceedings arising out of the

aforesaid incident, which were pending before the Paranda Court.

     After attending the function, Aishwarya went to the house of

her friend, Karuna Kamble (PW-1). At about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m., she

called the informant and informed him that when the deceased

Vitthal had come to the house of Karuna Kamble to take her, the

applicant-accused came there carrying an axe and assaulted Vitthal

on his head and neck with the said axe and thereafter fled from the

spot. Upon receiving the information, the informant came to the spot.

Vitthal was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

     Accordingly, on the basis of the report lodged by the informant,

a crime was registered against the applicant. After conducting the
                                  (3)
                                               Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt
trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, District

Dharashiv, by judgment dated 30/09/2025, convicted the applicant

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code.


4.   The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the

eyewitness, Aishwarya (PW-9), has deposed in consonance with the

prosecution case, but the other eyewitness, Karuna (PW-9), who is

her friend, has not supported the case of the prosecution. According

to Karuna (PW-9), she and Aishwarya were at the temple itself and

returned to the house at about 10.00 p.m. Therefore, according to the

learned counsel, it is difficult to believe that Aishwarya had witnessed

the incident. Moreover, Aishwarya (PW-9) has stated that when the

informant arrived at the spot, the deceased narrated the incident to

him before he was taken to the hospital. However, no such statement

finds place in the evidence of the informant. He further pointed out

that the Investigating Officer has admitted that no electric pole was

shown in the spot panchanama and therefore, it was highly difficult

for Aishwarya (PW-9) to clearly witness the incident. According to the

learned counsel, no independent witness has been examined by the

prosecution. Therefore, considering that the applicant has been

behind bars for about three years, he may be released on bail.



5.   On the contrary, the learned APP strongly opposed the
                                  (4)
                                               Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt
submissions made on behalf of the applicant.          According to her,

though the incident had taken place at night, but there was sufficient

light at the spot, as the light from the house of Karuna was available.

According to her, though Karuna has not supported the prosecution

case, but Aishwarya (PW-9) was the most natural witness and there

is no reason to disbelieve her testimony.       Thus, she prayed for

rejection of the application.


6.   It is significant to note that the prosecution claims that Karuna

(PW-1) and Aishwarya (PW-9) had witnessed the incident. Though

Karuna (PW-1) did not support the prosecution case, but she at least

admitted that Aishwarya (PW-9) had used her mobile phone to call

her father. Moreover,     Aishwarya (PW-9) appears to be a natural

witness and she has narrated the incident in consonance with the

prosecution case. Her evidence is also corroborated by the medical

evidence. The doctor who had examined the deceased has stated that

there were eight injuries, including three vital injuries, along with a

fracture of the skull and hematoma, which resulted into the death of

Vitthal. Not much importance can be given to the hostility of witness

Karuna (PW-1), because she must be having her own reason for not

supporting the prosecution case. It is also significant to note that the

applicant-accused was not released on bail during the trial.

Therefore, considering the prima facie material available against the

applicant-accused, we are not inclined to suspend his substantive
                                        (5)
                                                    Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt
sentence of imprisonment and release him on bail during the

pendency of the appeal.


7.          Accordingly, the application stands rejected.




 ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV )                ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE )
         JUDGE                                     JUDGE




VS Maind/