SHANTI SURESH PALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                  17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2228 OF 2026
                                 IN
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.619 OF 2026

Shanti Suresh Pal
Age – 76 years,
R/o. Room No. 408, R.J. Apartment,
Vijay Nagar, Virar (East), District –
Palghar,                                                 …Applicant/
Presently lodged at : Nashik Central                       Appellant
Prison.
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Wadala T.T. Police Station)                    …Respondent


Ms. Payoshi Roy i/b. Ms. Palak Dubey, Advocate for the
      Applicant/Appellant.
Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.


                       CORAM:        BHARATI DANGRE &
                                     MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
                       DATED:        22nd JULY 2026.

ORDER :

1.      The Applicant in this case is a 76 years old lady who has

been convicted in an offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2025,




                                Page 1 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                                  17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in

Sessions Case No. 224 of 2022.


2.      The brief background of the facts leading to conviction of the

Applicant are that, on 15.11.2021, the Vimal alias Dilipsingh

Khanna (hereinafter referred as, “the deceased”, for short),

resident of Room No. 409, building No.6, Bhakti Park, MHADA

Colony, Wadala East, Mumbai, after spending afternoon with P.W.

2, at his shop returned to his home. P.W. 2 Matloob Habib Shaikh

received a call from the mobile phone of deceased himself. The call

was made by an elderly women who spoke in Punjabi language,

which he could not follow. However, through another person he

came to know that Vimal Khanna has become unconscious,

therefore he immediately proceeded to the room of deceased.

When he knocked the door, the Applicant opened it, upon entering

he saw deceased lying on the floor. The Applicant told him that

deceased was unable to speak. Hence, he called the daughter of

the deceased. Sonu Khanna (wife of the deceased) informed the

Wadala TT police station about the condition of her husband. The

PSI who was patrolling in that area arrived on the scene of offence

and found the deceased lying on floor in a supine position with




                               Page 2 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                               17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




injuries on forehead, neck, back and body. Three women were

found to be present. The Applicant, her daughter Sonu Khanna and

her grand daughter Preeti Khanna. The deceased was shifted to

Sion hospital, Mumbai, where he was declared brought dead. After

investigation, charge sheet has been filed and on completion of

trial, the Applicant has been convicted by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Mumbai for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.


3.      The learned Advocate Ms. Payoshi Roy, for the Applicant

submits that the allegations against the Applicant are that she had

volunteered memorandum statement Exhibit-19 expressing her

willingness to produce the weapon used in the offence.

Accordingly, she led the two panchas and the investigation team to

the Room No.409 and took out a hammer from the rack which

was seized. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 2 appears to be

weighed on the mind of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater

Mumbai, to hold the Applicant guilty of the offence.


4.      P.W. 2 Matloob has stated that, on receiving call from the

deceased’s mother–in–law, when he went to the house of deceased,

the Applicant has opened the door and he saw the deceased lying

on the floor. Except these two witnesses there is no other witness



                              Page 3 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                                    17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




examined by the prosecution to prove presence of the Applicant

alone with the deceased.


5.      Ms. Roy would further submit that, the case is purely based

on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye – witness to the alleged

incident. The chain of circumstances is not conclusively proved.

The material witnesses like Sonu Khanna i.e. the wife of deceased

and grand daughter of Applicant have not been examined by the

prosecution. She further submitted that there is no nexus

established, by conclusive forensic proof of the alleged weapon and

the deceased. The blood group detected on the recovered hammer

could not be determined to establish that the             blood on the

hammer was that of the deceased.


6.      Ms. Roy further submits that, the Applicant is a senior citizen

of 76 years, who requires regular medical care and monitoring, her

incarceration is causing grave physical hardship to her. She has

already undergone more than four and a half years of incarceration

in the custody since 17.11.2021.             Hence, she deserves to be

released on bail by suspending the sentence. She has roots in the

society and is not likely to abscond. She is ready to undertake any

conditions that may be imposed on her by this Court.



                               Page 4 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                                17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




7.      The learned APP Ms. Sangeeta Shinde has vehemently

opposed the application contending that the prosecution has

established the complicity of the Applicant     by leading cogent

evidence. She was found present at the place of offence, she has

given memorandum statement, which lead to recovery of the

hammer which was kept in the house itself; which was used in the

offence. Thus, her presence at the place of offence and recovery of

weapon at her instance are sufficient to prove her complicity in the

offence. Hence, the Application deserves to be dismissed.


8.       We have heard the respective parties and perused the notes

of evidence placed on record. The case of the prosecution is based

on circumstantial evidence, hence, it was necessary to prove the

chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and establish the

complicity of the accused.


        P.W. 1 police constable on receiving information that one

lady who is residing in Room No.409 at Bhakti Park, Wadala,

Mumbai, had informed that someone has assaulted her husband,

hence, he along with other police constable have reached the crime

scene, where three women were present. One women named Sonu

along with her daughter Preeti and mother Shanti Pal were



                              Page 5 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                                   17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




present. They were taken to police station, where the Applicant

Shanti Pal has given confession about commission of offence.

Admittedly, the extra judicial confession by the accused is not

admissible in the evidence.


9.      P.W. 2 has stated that when he arrived at the place of

offence, only the Applicant was present in the room. However, he

neither called police or made inquiry with the neighbours. Thus,

there is inconsistency in the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 about

the number of person present in the house.


10.     The glaring inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution

is that, even though the offence has taken place on 16.11.2021,

and the Applicant has allegedly given her extra judicial confession

about commission of offence on the same day, the weapon hammer

has been recovered on 29.11.2021, which is almost 13 days after

her extrajudicial confession. P.W. 3 Sadashiv Lingayya Shetty, the

panch       witness   deposed   that     the   recovery   pursuant    to

memorandum statement is made on 29.11.2021, whereas in the

statement of P.W. 8 Nivrutti More, the IO, has stated that the

accused had shown her willingness to produce the weapon on

19.11.2021. Thus, there are inconsistencies even in the testimony



                                Page 6 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                                17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 about date of recording of memorandum

statement of the accused.


11.     Thus, on perusal of the notes of evidence produced by the

prosecution, we find that a prima facie case is made out by the

Applicant. Even otherwise considering that the Applicant is an

senior citizen aged 76 years, who has already undergone more

than five years of imprisonment, and the present Appeal is not

likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, in our

opinion, it would be appropriate to release the Applicant on bail by

suspending the sentence of life imprisonment, imposed on her vide

judgment and order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 224 of

2022.


12.     Hence, the Application of the Applicant is allowed. The

judgment and order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 224 of

2022, shall stand suspended, pending the hearing and final

disposal of the Appeal and the Applicant shall be released on bail

on following conditions:




                             Page 7 of 8

Rajeshri Aher
                                                      17 IA 2228 OF 2026.DOC




            (i)   Pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal,

                  the Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing

                  P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two

                  sureties in the like amount;


            (ii) The Applicant shall report to the Wadala T.T. police

                  station once in three months on the day/date specified

                  by the concerned police station incharge, till the

                  Appeal is finally disposed of;


            (iii) The Applicant shall keep the police station i.e.

                  Wadala TT police station, Mumbai, informed of her

                  current address and mobile contact number and/or

                  change of residence or mobile details along with the

                  mobile number and address of her relative, if any,

                  from time to time.


12.      Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.




 (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)                          (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
                                                                           {




                                  Page 8 of 8

Rajeshri Aher