Bombay High Court
JAYESH DAYARAM GANGAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court refused to suspend the life imprisonment sentence and denied bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Jayesh Dayaram Gangawane, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for stabbing his sister's husband, Arbaj, on 3 February 2023. He filed an application seeking suspension of the sentence and bail pending his appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in relying on contradictory testimony of an informant and an ambiguous statement by the victim's mother, Rukhsana. The State contended that Rukhsana, an eyewitness, directly observed the appellant stabbing the victim, that the murder weapon was seized from the appellant, and that CCTV footage corroborated the prosecution's case. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence established a prima facie case against the appellant, rendering the informant's testimony peripheral. Consequently, the court declined to suspend the life sentence or grant bail, upholding the conviction.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's life imprisonment sentence should be suspended pending appeal.
- Whether bail can be granted to a convicted murderer serving a life sentence.
- Whether the evidence presented (eye‑witness testimony, CCTV footage, and seized weapon) is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Subjects
- murder
- life imprisonment
- bail
- appeal
- evidence
- eyewitness testimony
- informant
- criminal procedure
- suspension of sentence
Judgment
(1)
Cri. Appln. No. 3300-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3300 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 636 of 2025
JAYESH DAYARAM GANGAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
….
Advocate for the applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe a/w
Adv. Saurabh R. Nikat
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. P.S. Patil
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVING ON : FEBRUARY 05, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 06, 2026
ORDER:-
1. Heard rival submissions.
2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original
accused in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2023, is seeking
suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment
awarded under the aforesaid Sessions case vide judgment
dated 08.07.2025, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nandurbar, during the pendency of this appeal and also his
release on bail.
3. As per the prosecution story, sister of this applicant by
name Deepali, had married with one Arbaj two years prior to
(2)
Cri. Appln. No. 3300-2025.odt
the incident. After marriage, name of Deepali was changed as
Zoya and out of wedlock they were having one four months
kid. However, due to inter-religion marriage, the applicant was
having grudge against Arbaj and on 03.02.2023 at about 6.30
p.m., when Arbaj had gone to grocery market along with his
mother Rukhsana, the applicant committed his murder, by
giving blow of knife on left side of the chest.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper
perspective and despite contradictions in the evidence of
informant as well as P.W. 2 Rukhsana ignored the same and
erroneously convicted the applicant. According to him, the
informant was not having any personal knowledge about the
incident and whatever he deposed before the Court, was in fact
gathered from his mother Rukhsana. The learned counsel for
the applicant also pointed out that the evidence of Rukhsana
was also ambiguous, as she did not name the applicant and
only stated that brother-in-law of Arbaj gave blow of knife and
fled from the spot. He further submits that, the entire
investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer appears
doubtful, since prior to arrest of the accused, the weapon
allegedly used in the crime was shown to be recovered.
According to him, though the incident took place on 3.2.2023
(3)
Cri. Appln. No. 3300-2025.odt
and the recovery of the weapon shown on the same day in the
evening, arrest of the applicant was shown on the next day.
Even his clothes were sized on the next day, despite of the fact
that he was with the police on the earlier day. As such, he
prayed for release of the applicant on bail during the pendency
of this appeal.
5. As against this, the learned A.P.P. strongly supported the
conviction of applicant/accused and submitted that mother of
the deceased was with the deceased at the time of incident and
she had every occasion to watch the applicant/accused closely,
while stabbing the deceased. She has also described the
murder weapon, which was seized from the applicant in
presence of panchas. He further pointed out that, even there
was CCTV footage about the incident, which the learned Trial
Judge had seen personally. As such, the learned A.P.P.
submits that when the prima facie involvement of the applicant
is involved in the crime, he cannot be released on bail.
6. Admittedly, on going through the entire material on
record, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the applicant.
Even though the evidence of the informant i.e. P.W.1, who is
brother of the deceased, is kept aside, as it was based on the
information received by his mother, but his mother P.W.2.
(4)
Cri. Appln. No. 3300-2025.odt
Rukhsana is the eye witness, who had seen the applicant
stabbing her son from close distance of nearly two feet. This
fact has also appreciated by the learned Trial Judge.
Therefore, the conviction appears to be based on the evidence
of eye witness, whose presence on the spot was but natural.
Further, the applicant had also chosen the vital part of the
body i.e. left side of the chest of the deceased, for stabbing. In
view of the same, and considering the prima facie evidence
against the applicant/accused, we are not inclined to release
him on bail by suspending his substantive sentence of life
imprisonment. In the result, the applicant stands rejected.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
Checking your session…