Bombay High Court

RAMESH PARASHRAM GAWANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that, on the prima facie view of the evidence—including the child’s eyewitness testimony, corroborating eyewitness, seized murder weapon, and medical report—the applicant does not merit bail pending appeal, and the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine, applied for suspension of his sentence and bail pending appeal. The prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of a child eyewitness who claimed the appellant assaulted her mother with an axe, corroborated by an adult eyewitness who saw the appellant approach the house with the weapon. The defence argued that the child’s testimony was unreliable and highlighted contradictions among witnesses and discrepancies between the inquest and post‑mortem reports. The court examined the credibility of the child witness, the corroborative evidence, the seizure of the alleged murder weapon, and the medical findings linking the injuries to the axe. Concluding that the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient at the prima facie stage, the court denied the bail and suspension application.

Issues considered

Whether bail pending appeal can be granted in a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC
Whether the testimony of a child witness, despite alleged inconsistencies, is sufficient to deny bail
Whether contradictions in witness statements affect the prima facie case for granting bail
Whether the appellant's claim of false implication merits suspension of sentence

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302

Subjects

murder
bail pending appeal
Section 302 IPC
child witness
eyewitness testimony
evidentiary contradictions
suspension of sentence

Judgment

IA No.2395-2026.doc

Rohit Ghuge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2395 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2026

Ramesh Parashram Gawande,
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT
Age: 24 years, Residing at Biwal
ROHIT RAMDAS
RAMDAS GHUGE Taluka: Surgana, Nashik – 422211
GHUGE Date:
2026.09.01
16:00:48 (Presently at Nashik Road Central
+0530
Prison) …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
(Through Surgana Police Station)
Dist. Nashik and Ors., …Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Shilpan Gaonkar a/w Samarth Sadavarte, for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent-State.
_______________________________________________________________

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ.

DATE : 29th AUGUST 2026.

PC:-

1. The Applicant, has approached this Court seeking suspension of

the sentence imposed on him vide order and judgment dated 23.12.2025

convicting him for offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code (“IPC”) and bail pending appeal. The Applicant was

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

1
IA No.2395-2026.doc

Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Heard, Mr. Shilpan Gaonkar for the Applicant and Mr. Tanveer

Khan, APP for Respondent-State. Perused the application and appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the Applicant is the

nephew of informant PW No.1-Chandar Gavande. The informant resides

with his two sons at village Bival. Since, the informant was travelling to

Pandharpur on 14.03.2023, he had come to his house at village Bival

along with his grand children on 13.03.2023. The informant was in his

agricultural land and his grand children were in the house. At about

11.30 am., PW No. 2, child witness came crying to the informant, she

said that the Applicant had assaulted her mother by an axe and that the

informant should rush to the house immediately. When the informant

returned to his house, he noticed his daughter in law lying dead in a pool

of blood. There was an axe and footwear near by.

4. One Ganga Mahale was present there. He told the informant that

he had seen the Applicant proceeding towards his house along with an

axe. After sometime, the Applicant ran away. At that time, there was no

axe in his hand. The informant went to the Police Station and lodged his

report which was recorded by the Police and FIR was registered against

the Applicant for having committed murder of the deceased. Dead body

of the deceased was taken to Rural Hospital. After post mortem, her

2
IA No.2395-2026.doc

body was handed over to the family. Thereafter, Police Investigation

commenced, various panchnamas were drawn, statements were recorded,

the axe and footwear of the Applicant was seized from the spot of the

offence. The Applicant was arrested. After conclusion of investigation,

charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court.

The Applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as

seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The

Applicant took up a defence of false implication and denial.

5. On behalf of the Applicant it was submitted that the case rested on

the foundation of the evidence of the child witness PW No. 2, whose

evidence did not inspire confidence and whose deposition had several

omissions and contradictions. He also invited our attention to the

evidence to urge that there were inherent contradictions between the

witnesses which raise a doubt on the prosecution’s case. There were

several discrepancies in the injuries mentioned in the inquest panchnama

versus the post mortem report. In the light of these facts, the advocate

for the Applicant prayed for suspension and bail pending appeal.

6. Learned APP has countered the submissions of the Applicant by

submitting that PW No. 2, child witness is also an eye witness to the

entire incident. The Trial Court before recording her evidence has

ascertained the fact that she was aware of the importance of taking an

oath and also found her competent to testify. Her evidence has not been

3
IA No.2395-2026.doc

eroded in the cross examination and hence, her evidence inspires

confidence. He further submits that, apart from this eye witness, PW No.

3 has deposed that he has seen the Applicant proceeding towards the

house of the deceased,with an axe in hand. He also saw the Applicant

running away and at that time he did not have an axe in his hand.

Thereafter, the child eye witness came to him crying and told him that

her mother i.e. the deceased was killed by the Applicant. He submitted

that the axe and footwear of the Applicant were seized from the spot of

the offence. The medical evidence corroborates ocular evidence and the

injuries on the body of the deceased. In the wake of these submissions,

learned APP prayed that the bail be rejected.

7. Appreciating rival submissions, following facts emerge. The entire

case of the prosecution rests essentially on the evidence of two witnesses

namely PW No.2 and PW No. 3. In so far as PW No. 2 is concerned, she

was a child witness studying in the second standard at the time her

statement was recorded. At the time when she deposed, she was studying

in the fifth standard. Since, she was a minor and no oath could be

administered to her, the Trial Court has asked her questions to find out

her general intelligence and the importance of swearing an oath and

consequences rising out of lying under oath. These questions have been

satisfactorily answered by the witness. She has categorically deposed that

on the day of incident she had not gone to school. At that time, she along

4
IA No.2395-2026.doc

with her mother were present in the house. She states that (Applicant)

Ramesh came into their house and tried to strangulate her mother. He

took out an axe from behind and assaulted her mother on the neck and

head, leading to serious injuries on her neck and head and severe loss of

blood. The Applicant took off his footwear and ran away. PW No. 2 went

to PW No. 3-Gangaram and told him that the Applicant has killed her

mother with an axe.

8. This fact is corroborated by the evidence of PW No. 3-Gangaram

who has deposed that when he was at his house he saw the Applicant

proceeding towards the house of the deceased,with an axe in hand. After

that, he deposes to have seen the Applicant running away and at that

time he did not see any axe in his hand. He also corroborates PW No.2,

child witness by confirming that she had come to him crying immediately

after the incident. The evidence of these two witnesses has not been

shattered in the cross examination. Although the defence has brought out

some contradictions in the evidence of PW No. 3 on the aspect of seeing

the Applicant proceeding to the house of the deceased with an axe, even

if this contradiction is accepted his corroboration of the narration by PW

No 2 remains uncontroverted.

9. The murder weapon i.e. the axe is seized from the spot. The

footwear of the Applicant is identified by PW No. 1, informant who

happens to be the uncle of the Applicant. The Applicant is arrested

5
IA No.2395-2026.doc

immediately after the incident. Post mortem notes show four chop

injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased namely the head

(skull), the neck and the cervical vertebra. All injuries were ante-mortem.

The cause of death was opined as injuries to the neck and head. The

Doctor performing the autopsy (PW No. 5) has stated in his evidence

that the injuries mentioned in column no. 17 were possible by the iron

axe which was examined by him. These injuries were life threatening and

sufficient to cause death. Investigation has revealed that the Applicant

had one sided obsessive love for the deceased which was resisted by her.

The Applicant has therefore, assaulted her and committed her murder.

10. In the light of the aforesaid analysis of evidence, the eye witness

testimony, seizure of murder weapon, the nature of injuries being in

consonance with the medical evidence, at the prima facie stage, no case is

made out the for grant of bail pending appeal.

In the wake of the aforesaid discussion the application for bail and

suspension of sentence is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…