Bombay High Court
ASHOK LALJITKUMAR CHAURASIYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court suspended the life sentence and granted bail, holding that the evidentiary and procedural deficiencies render the conviction unsafe.
Summary
The applicant, convicted of murder under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and bail. The prosecution’s case relied on a FIR that did not name the applicant, unexamined informant statements, and circumstantial evidence from chance witnesses who were not eye‑witnesses. The defence argued that the lack of direct evidence, the failure to examine the informant, and the hearsay nature of the witnesses rendered the conviction unsafe. The Court observed that procedural lapses and the absence of forensic linkage to the applicant undermined the prosecution’s case, making the conviction tenuous. Consequently, the Court suspended the life sentence pending appeal and granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with sureties, imposing standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC can be sustained on circumstantial evidence without examination of the informant and eye‑witness testimony.
- Whether the procedural lapse of not examining the FIR informant affects the validity of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether bail pending appeal and suspension of the sentence is warranted in view of the evidentiary deficiencies.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 307, 34, 504
Subjects
- murder
- IPC 302
- common intention
- circumstantial evidence
- bail
- procedural lapse
- suspension of sentence
Judgment
IA-1804-2026.odt
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1804 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2026
Ashok Laljitkumar Chaurasiya …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
ROHIT
RAMDAS Mr. B. A. Lawate, Advocate for Applicant.
GHUGE
Digitally signed by
ROHIT RAMDAS
GHUGE
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State.
Date: 2026.09.09
13:31:21 +0530 _______________________________________________________________
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 07th SEPTEMBER 2026.
PC.
1. The Applicant, who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in the
proceedings before the Trial Court has approached this Court seeking
suspension of sentence imposed on him vide order and judgment dated
18.03.2026 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 302
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The Applicant was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Heard, Mr. B. A. Lawate, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.
1
IA-1804-2026.odt
Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State. Perused the Application and
Appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the evidence is that
on 20.05.2017 at around 11.30 pm, Mira Road Police Station received a
phone call that there was some quarrel going on in the vicinity and two
people have been seriously injured in the quarrel. The first informant,
one Ankush Mishra recorded a complaint that four persons were
consuming liquor, a quarrel broke out between them, two of them were
beaten by Bamboo stick and sustained injuries. One of them was
unconscious and the other were conscious. Police was informed, they
arrived and took both the injured to the hospital. One of the injured
namely Rajendra @ Rajan was taken to the hospital but, he died before
admission. The other injured was treated and discharged after some time.
One of the alleged assailants was accosted by the police at the spot. He is
the co-accused. It is pertinent to note that, the FIR does not name the
present Applicant nor is it the case of the prosecution that the Applicant
was apprehended from the spot. FIR No. I-177/2017 was registered
against the co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 307, 302
and 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police conducted
investigation, recorded statements, the Applicant was arrested on
25.05.2017 in the wee hours of the morning, somewhere before 5.15 am.
The panchnamas were drawn, bloodstained clothes of the Accused and
2
IA-1804-2026.odt
deceased were sent for forensic analysis. Post mortem was carried out.
After conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Since, the
offences were sessions triable, the matter was committed to the Sessions
Court. The defence of the Applicant was that of total denial and false
implication.
4. On behalf of the Applicant it was argued that the neither the
informant nor the injured witnesses were examined by the prosecution,
although their statements were recorded by the Police. The case is based
on circumstantial evidence. The chance witnesses who are examined and
who identified the Applicant, are not eye witnesses to the incident and
they are strangers to the Applicant. Since, they do not claim to have seen
the incident, their identification of the Applicant for the first time in
court cannot be relied upon.
5. Countering these submissions, learned APP argued that the death is
proved to the homicidal. Although the first informant was not examined,
the FIR is proved through the scribe of the report (PW No.1). The
Accused have not given any explanation for bloodstained clothes seized
at their instance by the police and hence, the prosecution has proved its
case against the Applicant.
6. Considering rival submissions, following facts emerge. The first
informant in this case, one Ankush Mishra has given a report in the
3
IA-1804-2026.odt
morning of 21.05.2017 to PW No. 1 who is the ASI attached to Mira
Road Police Station. This report has been treated as the FIR. It is
pertinent to note that, taking the FIR as it is, it does not mention the
name of the Applicant. For reasons best known to the prosecution, the
first informant was not examined during the trial. In a departure from
the established procedure, the author/scribe of the FIR has exhibited it in
evidence. This procedural lapse has seriously affected the case of the
prosecution. Although, it is not in dispute that deceased has died due to
head injury and there are several injuries found on the body of the
deceased, the evidence does not prima facie indicate the complicity of the
Applicant as the author of the injuries which led to the death of the
deceased. The prosecution has examined three chance witnesses who
claim to be on the spot at the relevant time. Evidence of PW No. 11 is
hearsay in nature. In any event he has not identified the Applicant in
court. PW No. 13 is another chance witness. He deposes that someone
told him that there was a quarrel and two persons were injured. This is
also in the nature of hearsay evidence. Even the forensic evidence does
not indicate any complicity of the Applicant in the offence. In the light of
the aforesaid discussion, this is a fit case for grant of bail pending Appeal
and suspension of sentence. In view thereof, the following order:
ORDER
i) The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court vide
4
IA-1804-2026.odt
its order and judgment dated 18.03.2026, in Sessions
Case No. 92 of 2018 is suspended during the pendency
of the Appeal.
ii) The Applicant be released on bail on executing PR
bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only)
with one or more surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
iii) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of this
Court without prior permission.
iv) The Applicant shall inform the Trial Court of his
contact details and residential address alongwith
changes therein, if any.
v) Infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions would
entitle the State to move for cancellation of bail.
Interim Application No. 1804 of 2026 is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
5
Checking your session…