SUKHADEV SOPAN BARIKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                              8-CRIA-113-2025.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2025
                                        IN
                          CR. APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2025

Shri. Sukhdev Sopan Barik                              ...Applicant.
         Versus
State Of Maharashtra                                   ...Respondent.
                                  ——————
Mr. Amit Mane (through VC), Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent - State
                                  ——————
                                     Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                 Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                     Date      : August 20, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, in Sessions Case

No.42/2021, by Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2023, convicting and

sentencing the Appellant as follows :

     “1. The accused Sukhdev Sopan Barik, is found guilty of the ofence
         punishable under Section 302, 201 and 341 of Indian Penal Code.
         vide Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
     2.    The accused Sukhdev Sopan Barik is hereby convicted of the
          ofence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and
          sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life and to pay ine of Rs.
          10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only), in default, to undergo simple
          imprisonment of 6 (Six) months.
     3. The accused Sukhdev Sopan Barik is hereby convicted of the
        ofence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and
        sentenced to sufer simple imprisonment of 3(Three) years and to
        pay ine of Rs.2.000/- (Rs. Two Thousand Only), in default, to
        undergo simple imprisonment of 1(One) month.


Sameer                                1 of 5
                                                           8-CRIA-113-2025.doc


     4. The accused Sukhdev Sopan Barik is hereby convicted of the
        ofence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code and
        sentenced to sufer simple imprisonment of I(one) month and to
        pay ine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred Only), in default, to
        undergo simple imprisonment of 15 (ifteen) days.
     5. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. ……
     6. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. ……
     7. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. ……
     8. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. ……
     9. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. ……
     10. …..   …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. ……
     11. …..   …… ……. …… ……. …..             …… ……. …….”

2.       The case of the Prosecution is that, in the intervening night of

5th / 6th June – 2021, when the deceased was sleeping at his residence,

the Appellant entered the house and committed his murder by inlicting

fatal blows. Due to the shout, the family members of the deceased got

up when they saw the deceased in an injured condition. The deceased

was taken to the Hospital. The incident was reported to the police and

Crime No.59/2021 came to be registered with Banda Police Station for

the ofence punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 201 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The Investigating Machinery

conducted the investigation, during which, the statements of witnesses

were recorded. The Appellant came to be arrested. The weapon, i.e.

pick-axe blade came to be discovered and seized at the instance of the

Appellant. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came

to be iled.


Sameer                             2 of 5
                                                        8-CRIA-113-2025.doc


3.       The Prosecution examined twelve (12) witnesses to prove the

charge. The learned Trial Court by considering the evidence on record,

convicted the Appellant and sentenced him as stated above.


4.       Heard both the sides. With their assistance, we have perused the

evidence on record and the observations made by the learned Trial

Court.


5.       It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,

two (02) eyewitnesses examined by the Prosecution in support of the

charge did not support the case of Prosecution. Though the pick-axe

blade is shown to have been discovered at the instance of the Appellant,

there is nothing to connect the said article with the crime. The other

evidence on record is of no assistance to the Prosecution to prove the

charge. He submits that, the Appellant is behind bars for a period of

more than ive (05) years. He submits that, the Application be allowed.


6.       It is submitted by the learned APP that, though the eyewitnesses

did not support the case of Prosecution, they had narrated the incident

in their previous statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.PC’), which shows the involvement of the

Appellant in the crime. The CDR report shows one phone call between

the Appellant and deceased’s wife one day prior to the incident. He




Sameer                            3 of 5
                                                        8-CRIA-113-2025.doc


submits that, the learned Trial Court has considered the entire evidence

on record and rightly convicted the Appellant, and the Application be

rejected.


7.       The Prosecution examined all twelve (12) witnesses in support of

the charge. PW – 3 and PW – 4 are the daughter and wife, respectively,

of the deceased. They were present in the house where the incident had

taken place. Their evidence goes to show that, they did not support the

case of Prosecution. Though the learned APP had cross-examined the

said witnesses, nothing has come on record to show the involvement of

the Appellant in the incident. The discovery of the pick-axe blade will

not be relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, since there

is no material to connect the same with the crime. The learned Trial

Court, as can be seen from the observations made in the impugned

Judgment, has considered the statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC

and convicted the Appellant. The same is not permissible under law. The

observations in the impugned Judgment shows that, the Prosecution

brought on record the motive behind the crime, namely, the afair

between the Appellant and the wife of the deceased. It is needless to

state that, the motive, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

The Appellant is behind bars for a period of ive (05) year and more. The

Appeal is of 2025 and there is no possibility that the Appeal would be




Sameer                            4 of 5
                                                           8-CRIA-113-2025.doc


inally heard in the near future. In this view of the matter, we proceed to

pass the following order :

                                    ORDER

     [I]     The Application is allowed.

     [II]    The substantive sentence imposed by the learned
             Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, in Sessions
             Case No.42/2021, by Judgment and Order dated
             22.06.2023, on the Applicant, namely, Shri. Sukhdev
             Sopan Barik, is suspended during the pendency of
             the present Appeal.

     [III]   The Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing
             P.R. Bond of Rs.20000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand
             only] with one or two sureties in the like amount.

     [IV]    The Applicant shall co-operate with this Court in early
             hearing of the Appeal.

     [V]     Bail before the Trial Court.


8.       Application stands disposed of accordingly.




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




Sameer                                5 of 5