UMAJI SATERI LOHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                               22-CRIA-119-2026.doc


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

             CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2026
                                         IN
                          CR. APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2026

Umaji Sateri Lohar                                      ...Applicant.
        Versus
State Of Maharashtra                                    ...Respondent.
                                   ——————
Ms. Archana Gaikwad a/w Mr. Satej Patill, Advocate for the Applicant
Dr. Ashwini A. Talekar, APP for 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 Special Judge, Gadhinglaj, in Special Case No.01/2024, by

Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2025, convicting and sentencing the

Applicant – Appellant as follows :

     “1. The accused is convicted for the ofence punishable under Section
         302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer life
         imprisonment and to pay ine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten
         Thousand only). In default of payment of ine, he shall undergo
         rigorous imprisonment of 2 years, vide Section 235 (2) of the Code
         of Criminal Procedure.

     2. The accused is convicted for the ofence punishable under Section
         452 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer rigorous
         imprisonment of ive years and shall pay ine of Rs.2,000/-
         (Rupees Two Thousand only). In default of payment of ine, he
         shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months, vide Section
         235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.



Sameer                                1 of 6
                                                              22-CRIA-119-2026.doc


      3. The accused is acquitted of the ofence punishable under Section
          504, 506 of Code and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) r/w Section 6 of
          Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, prevention of Atrocities
          Act, vide Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

      4. The accused be granted set of from 05/11/2023 to 27/02/2025
          (till today) vide Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
      5. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..                …… ……. ……
      6. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..                …… ……. ……

      7. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..                …… ……. ……

      8. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..                …… ……. ……

      9. …..    …… ……. …… ……. …..                …… ……. ……”


2.       To know the Prosecution’s case, Paragraph No.2 of the impugned

Judgment is reproduced below :


“1.      The informant Rahul Suresh Kamble lodged report that on the day

of incident, there was Sunday. His maternal brother namely Amit Yallavva

Kamble (hereafter called as 'the deceased') was doing work of centering

and he was residing with his grandmother Mallavva Dattu Kamble. The

deceased was doing work with accused Umaji Sateri Lohar. The deceased

was belonging to Hindu-Mahar caste. In October-2023, the deceased took

Rs.1,000/- from the accused in advance. On 05/11/2023 at 8.45 a.m., the

informant and the deceased were talking with each other in front of their

Court yard. The accused called the deceased on mobile and asked whether

he was coming for the work or not. The deceased replied that he would

not come to work. The informant along with Shankar Kamble were



Sameer                                2 of 6
                                                          22-CRIA-119-2026.doc


standing in front of house. The deceased was also standing in the court

yard at 9.00 a.m. Suddenly the accused came on his motorcycle bearing

No.KA/22/U/809. He gave dash to the deceased with an intention to kill

him. He inserted his motorcycle between two legs of the deceased. The

accused was started to abuse the deceased by saying 'to return his money'.

When the deceased entered in his house the accused followed him. After

some time, the accused came out of house and went away. The deceased

holding his stomach lying on the loor of the house. Saliva was coming out

of his mouth. He sustained injury to thumb of right leg. The deceased was

shouting therefore surrounding persons gathered and they took the

deceased to Savitri Hospital, Shinoli Budruk. The doctor asked to take him

to Belgaon. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Belgaon. After admission and

on examination, the doctor informed that the deceased was dead. The

informant lodged report against the accused for the ofence under section

302, 452, 504, 506 of Code and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) r/w. Atrocities Act.

On investigation, charge-sheet iled against the accused for the ofence

u/s. 302, 452, 504, 506 of Code and u/s.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) r/w Section 6 of

Atrocities Act. On charge-sheet, the case is committed to this Court. After

commit, this Court framed charge against the accused for the ofence

u/s.302, 452, 504, 506 of Code and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) r/w. Section 6 of

Atrocities Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.”




Sameer                             3 of 6
                                                       22-CRIA-119-2026.doc


3.       The learned Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence of

eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, convicted the Appellant and

sentenced him as above.


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

though the Prosecution has examined eyewitnesses to the incident,

they had given contrary versions in respect of the actual incident. The

evidence of one witness goes to show that, there was no damage to the

motorcycle. The evidence of the police constable, who collected the

CCTV footage, goes to show that, the CCTV footage does not show the

occurrence of incident, as narrated by the Informant. She submits that,

the Appellant is behind bars for a period of two (02) years and eight (08)

months and the Appeal would take its own time for inal hearing. She

submits that, the Application be allowed.


5.       The Application is opposed by the learned APP. She submits that,

the case is based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. The complainant,

who belong to the Scheduled Caste, is not made a party-Respondent in

the Appeal. The medical evidence corroborate the testimony of the

eyewitnesses. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and passed the Judgment of conviction and

sentence. She submits that, no case for suspension of sentence is made

out.



Sameer                            4 of 6
                                                       22-CRIA-119-2026.doc


6.       With the assistance of both the sides, we have perused the

evidence on record. The Prosecution examined eyewitnesses in support

of their case, who deposed that, the Appellant gave dash to the

deceased by the motorcycle, and thereafter assaulted him. The

evidence of PW – 9, Policemen, goes to show that, the incident was

captured in the CCTV footage. His evidence goes to show that, the

incident captured in the CCTV was not the same as narrated by the

Informant in the report. The medical evidence goes to show that, there

was one external injury pelvic and groin as were contused and reddish in

colour. On internal examination, the right side chest wall was showing

blood. The medical evidence of PW – 2 - Dr. Pushpa, who conducted the

postmortem, shows that, only provisional opinion in respect of the

cause of death was given as ‘shock and hemorrhage due to blunt trauma

sustained to abdomen’. The cross-examination of the Medical Oicer

goes to show that, she did not gave any inal opinion in respect of the

cause of death. This indicate that, the inal cause of death is not

available on record. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the

possibility that, the ofence may be scaled down to lesser ofence

cannot be ruled out. Since the Appellant is acquitted for the ofence

punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and there is no Appeal against

the said acquittal, there is no requirement to hear the Informant.


Sameer                           5 of 6
                                                          22-CRIA-119-2026.doc


7.       The Appeal is of 2026 and not likely to reach in near future. In

view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order :

                                    ORDER

     [I]     The Application is allowed.

     [II]    The substantive sentence imposed by the learned
             Special   Judge,    Gadhinglaj,    in   Special   Case
             No.01/2024,    by    Judgment     and   Order     dated
             27.02.2025, on the Applicant, namely, Umaji Sateri
             Lohar, is suspended during the pendency of the
             present Appeal.

     [III]   The Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing
             P.R. Bond of Rs.15000/- [Rupees Fifteen 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                                6 of 6