SUNIL JANGALU MALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                 (1)
                                              Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 582 OF 2026
          IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2026

                     SUNIL JANGALU MALI
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 ...
Mr. Gaurav Bhawani, Advocate holding for Mr. Ashish Hazari,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
                                 ...

                               WITH
         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 586 OF 2026
           IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2026
                   SITARAM APPA TALWARE
                              VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 ...
Mr. Gaurav Bhawani, Advocate holding for Mr. Ashish Hazari,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
Mr. Nitin Salunke, Advocate appointed through Legal Services
Authority for respondent No.2.
                                 ...

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

                                       RESERVED ON   : 17.08.2026
                                       PRONOUNCED ON : 18.08.2026

Final order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

1.    By Criminal Application No. 582 of 2026, the applicant, i.e.

original accused No.1 and applicant in Criminal Application No. 586

of 2026 i.e. original accused No.5 in Sessions Case No. 240 of 2019,

are seeking suspension of their substantive sentences of life
                                  (2)
                                              Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt
imprisonment and their release on bail. Admittedly, the applicants

were an under trial prisoners and behind the bars since last around

seven years.


2.    As per the prosecution story, the present applicants along with

other accused, on 07.08.2019, took away one Samadhan @ Buriya

Shamdas Sonawane i.e. cousin brother-in-law of the informant

Jitendra More (PW-1) on motorcycle from Civil Hospital, Dhule and

proceeded to village Manke. The informant was also with them. On

the way to village Manke, after passing village Lalling at about 11.30

p.m., all the accused stopped their motorcycle and started beating

Samadhan.      Samadhan was taken towards one streamlet by the side

of road along with the informant.       Then the aforesaid applicants

strangulated Samadhan with the help of scarf (Uparne/Gamcha) to

death. Thereafter, they took informant with them and dropped him at

Shirud-Chaufuli and threatened him not to disclose the incident to

anybody. Thereafter, according to the F.I.R. lodged by the informant,

all the accused were charge-sheeted. Though the learned Trial Judge

acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4, but convicted the applicants for

committing murder of Samadhan.


3.    The learned counsel for the applicants submits that, the

informant, who was also the eye witness to the incident, has not acted

diligently for lodging the F.I.R., despite knowing the incident well in
                                   (3)
                                               Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt
advance. He further added that, the learned Trial Judge had already

discarded the evidence in respect of recovery of incriminating articles,

such as ligature material at the instance of the accused. Moreover, the

investigating officer also stated that nobody was seen in CCTV footage

of the Toll Plaza while going to Lalling. The learned Trial Judge has

also disbelieved the recovery of mobile handset of the deceased at the

hands of accused No.1- Sitaram. According to him, the applicants are

behind the bars for almost around seven years, and therefore,

considering the unnatural conduct of the alleged eye witness P.W.1 i.e.

the informant, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the

applicants can be suspended during the pendency of this appeal.

4.    On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for

Respondent No.2 strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of

the applicants and submitted that, there is direct evidence of the

informant against the present applicants, and therefore, merely the

F.I.R. is lodged belatedly, no benefit can be granted to the applicants.

As such, they prayed for dismissal of the applications.

5.    Heard rival submissions, also perused the evidence on record

along with the impugned judgment.


6.    Admittedly, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the applicants

mainly on the evidence of informant P.W.1 Jitendra More. However, it

is also important to note that the learned Trial Judge has discarded the
                                  (4)
                                              Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt
evidence relating to discovery of ligature material as well as mobile

handset of the deceased at the instance of the applicants. It is to be

noted that, the incident had taken place at about 9.30 p.m. on

07.08.2019 and according to P.W.-1, he was dropped at Shirud-

Chaufuli by the accused persons around 12.30 a.m. of 08.08.2019 and

he reached home in the early morning. Moreover, it has come in the

evidence that, from 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. on that day, he was in the

hospital, where police were also present, but he has admitted that he

did not tell anything about the incident to the police. Moreover, the

spot panchnama was also drawn on that day at 6.15 p.m., but at that

time also the informant, who was present there, did not disclose the

name of accused persons.

7.    It is important to note that, the F.I.R. was lodged by the

informant at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. in the night on that day i.e.

08.08.2019.    That means, despite witnessing the incident on the

earlier day, P.W.-1 did not disclose it to police for about 24 hours.

Though it has come in the evidence of P.W.-8 Ganesh that the

informant had already told about the incident to police, but the

informant in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that till

lodging the F.I.R. he did not disclose the incident to police. Moreover,

the Investigating Officer is also unable to state as to what time the

informant made disclosure of the offence to him.         Therefore, the

evidence of P.W.-1 about witnessing the incident appears doubtful.
                                    (5)
                                                 Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt
8.      It is also important to note that the present applicants are

behind the bars for about seven years, and therefore, considering the

doubtful conduct of the P.W.-1, we are of the opinion that the

substantive sentence of imprisonment of the present applicants can be

suspended, since there is no likelihood of hearing the appeal in near

future. In view of the same, we pass the following order.

                          ORDER

(A)     The applications are allowed.

(B)     The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed upon
        the applicants namely Sitaram Appa Talware and Sunil Jangalu
        Mali, who are accused Nos. 1 and 5 respectively in Sessions
        Case No. 240 of 2019 under judgment and order dated
        16.05.2025 is hereby suspended during the pendency of this
        appeal.


(C)     The applicants are released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.
        50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one or more
        solvent sureties in the like amount.


(D)     The applications are accordingly disposed of.

(E)     The fees of the learned counsel appointed for Respondent No.2
        in Criminal Application No. 586 of 2026 is quantified at
        Rs.3000/- (Rs.Three Thousand only) to be paid by the High
        Court Legal Services, Sub Committee, Aurangabad.



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

YSK/-