AJIT BHAGWAN KANHURKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                              IA-2497-2026.odt

                                                                                Rohit Ghuge

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2497 OF 2026
                                                     IN
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 367 OF 2025
ROHIT
RAMDAS
GHUGE                 Ajit Bhagwan Kanhurkar,                                …Applicant
Digitally signed by
ROHIT RAMDAS
GHUGE
Date: 2026.09.03            Versus
18:04:00 +0530



                      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      …Respondents
                      _______________________________________________________________
                      Mr. Salman Pathan, Mr. Santosh Bhagwat, Mr. Vedant Bhagwat,
                      Advocates for the Applicant.
                      Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                      _______________________________________________________________

                                                      CORAM:       BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                                   ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ.

                                                       DATE :      03rd SEPTEMBER 2026.

                      PC.

                      1.    The Applicant has approached this Court seeking suspension of

                      sentence imposed on him vide order and judgment dated 10.02.2025

                      convicting him for offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

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

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

                      Rs.1,00,000/-, along with default sentence. Although, the Applicant was

                      charged for offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25

                      and 27 of the Arms Act along with Section 37(1) read with Section 135



                                                          1
                                                          IA-2497-2026.odt

of the Bombay Police Act, he was acquitted of these charges.


2.    Heard, Mr. Salman Pathan, 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 informant, one

Shivaji Khese lodged a report on 12.06.2018 informing that Shrinath

Khese (deceased) and Pournima Khese, daughter of his cousin brother

Sudam Khese were at Khese Vasti Bus stop at about 7.20 am. They both

boarded the bus. He was on his motorcycle, going to distribute milk at

village Davadi and when he was at Jagdamba Maka Bharada Kendra he

saw that the ST Bus was stopped there. The people in the bus were

raising hue and cry. He stopped his motorcycle behind the bus and came

near the bus. He saw that Pournima was crying. He asked her as to what

happened. She narrated that she along with the deceased (her brother)

had boarded the bus at Khese Wasti. The Applicant was in the bus on the

rear end side. When the bus was in motion, the Applicant got up from his

seat, took out a sickle from his bag and assaulted the deceased with the

sickle on head and neck. He then ran away from the bus. When the

informant entered the bus, he saw that the deceased was lying in an

injured condition in the middle seat of the side where the cleaner sits.

The deceased had received injuries on his head and neck. The informant

asked the ST driver and conductor to take the deceased to a hospital. The

deceased was declared dead on arrival. In pursuance of the report of the



                                    2
                                                         IA-2497-2026.odt

first informant, Crime No.223 of 2018 was registered for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sections 4, 25 and 27 of the

Arms Act against the Applicant.


4.    During the course of investigation, various panchnamas were

drawn, the dead body was forwarded for post mortem, the blood

samples, nail clippings of the deceased were preserved and sent for

chemical analysis. The Applicant was arrested on the same day. During

his medical examination, injuries were found on his person. The

statements of witnesses including the bus driver and bus conductor were

recorded. Investigation was concluded, chargesheet was filed. Case was

committed to the Sessions Court. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. No defence

witnesses were examined by the Applicant. The defence of the Applicant

was that of total denial and false implication.


5.    On behalf of the Applicant it was contended that there were

several material contradictions in the evidence of PW No.5 the bus

conductor. Although, the PW No. 5 has deposed that a Test Identification

Parade (TIP) was conducted, no such memorandum of parade was

proved in evidence by the prosecution. It was submitted that the evidence

of PW No. 5 does not inspire confidence since, he has contradicted PW

No. 7 Pournima (sister of the deceased). He deposes that he did not see

any female passenger along with the deceased boarding the bus. Whereas,



                                     3
                                                              IA-2497-2026.odt

PW No. 7 categorically states, that she boarded the bus along with her

brother and was a witness to the assault on her brother by the Applicant.

He would submit that this creates a doubt as to whether the eye witness

PW No. 7 is a natural witness or not. On behalf of the Applicant it was

further contended that, in the absence of Test Identification Parade, the

identity of the Applicant was not conclusively established.


6.    Learned APP Mr. Khan, countered the aforesaid submissions by

submitting that the evidence of the eye witness Pournima was not

shattered during cross examination. The motive for the commission of

offence has been narrated by various witnesses. The motive seems to be

the animosity that the Applicant had towards Pradnya, the elder sister of

the eye witness Pournima and the deceased. The witnesses had narrated

prior instances where the Applicant had tried to defame Pradnya on

social media and also harassed Pournima, for which their family had

lodged a complaint against the Applicant. Our attention was also invited

to the evidence of one of the relatives of the Applicant who states in his

evidence that a few days prior to the incident, he had met the Applicant

who had told him that he wanted to take revenge on Pradnya who had

cheated him. Learned APP also pointed out the evidence of the informant

who had reached the scene of the offence immediately after the incident.

He saw that the bus was stopped at the distance of about one Kilometer

from Khese Wasti. People were running helter-skelter. When the




                                     4
                                                          IA-2497-2026.odt

informant went near the bus, he saw the bus conductor and driver were

in a frightened condition and Pournima was crying near the bus. She

narrated the incident to the informant. Learned APP has submitted that,

even if PW No. 5, the bus conductor is to be disbelieved, the evidence of

the informant PW No. 3 establishes the presence of witness Pradnya at

the scene of the offence and hence, the testimony of Pradnya cannot be

disbelieved. Most importantly, he submitted that the forensic evidence

links the applicant with the offence. Blood of ‘O Group’ was found on

the handle of the knife, shirt of the deceased and shirt of the Applicant.

The Blood group of the deceased is of ‘O Group’ and that of the

Applicant is of ‘A Group’. The obvious inference is that the blood of the

deceased was found on the shirt of the Applicant. The Applicant has in

his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., not given any explanation

about this fact. According to the learned APP, the forensic evidence

against the Applicant, in conjunction with the eye witness evidence,

recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained clothes at the instance

of the Applicant has established the prosecution case beyond reasonable

doubt.


7.    Appreciating rival submissions, following facts emerge. The

evidence of PW No. 3 has to be read along with the evidence of PW

No.7. PW No. 3 is the first informant who has reached the scene of the

offence immediately after the incident. He states that, on 12.06.2018 he




                                    5
                                                         IA-2497-2026.odt

was proceeding from Khese Wasti to his village to sell milk. On the way

he saw one ST Bus stop at the distance of about a kilometer from Khese

Wasti. Upon reaching there, he saw people were running helter-skelter

and raising shouts. He saw the bus conductor and driver in a frightened

condition. He saw his relative Pournima (PW No. 7), who was crying

there. She narrated that Applicant had assaulted her brother Shrinath.

When he entered the bus, he saw Shrinath lying on the seat of the bus

having injuries on his head and neck. Although this witness has not seen

either Pournima or the deceased Shrinath boarding the Bus at Khese

Wasti, he has certainly seen her at the scene of offence, crying. The

learned Counsel for the Applicant has assailed the evidence of PW No. 5

(bus-conductor), on the ground that, he does not speak about Pournima

boarding the bus along with the deceased Shrinath. Even if the evidence

of this witness i.e. (PW No. 5) is to be believed on the point of the eye

witness Pournima not boarding the bus along with Shrinath, we cannot

ignore the fact that PW No. 3 appears to be a natural witness whose

evidence has not been eroded in the cross examination by the defence. In

the light of the clear and cogent eye witness evidence of PW No. 7

(Pournima), PW No. 3 has certainly established her presence at the scene

of offence. Hence, the credibility of her evidence cannot be doubted at

this stage.


8.     Three other circumstances implicate the Applicant. Firstly, the




                                    6
                                                            IA-2497-2026.odt

recovery of a sack containing blood stained clothes, iron pipe, mobile

handsets and blood stained knife at the instance of the Applicant from a

place which prima facie does not seem to be open or accessible. Secondly,

the injuries on the body of the Applicant. Medical Examination of the

Applicant revealed injuries on his fingers. The injuries were opined to

have been inflicted within 12 hours. PW No. 12, the Doctor who has

examined the Applicant has deposed that these injuries are possible if a

person is assaulting with a sickle like weapon. These injuries are

unexplained. The Applicant has not offered any cogent explanation for

the said injuries. Thirdly, the forensic evidence establishes the link

between the offence and the offender. The ABO blood grouping of the

deceased and the Applicant reveals that the blood group of the deceased

is ‘O’ and blood group of the applicant is ‘A’. As per the C.A report,

blood of ‘O’ group is found on the shirt of the Applicant and the knife.

Both these items were recovered at the instance of the Applicant. No

explanation was forthcoming from the Applicant as to how the blood

group of the deceased was found on the clothing and knife recovered at

his instance.


9.    In the light of the aforesaid discussion and considering the prima

facie incriminating circumstances against the Applicant, in the backdrop

of the gravity of the offence alleged against him, we find that this is not a

fit case to grant bail to the Applicant and suspend his sentence pending




                                      7
                                                       IA-2497-2026.odt

Appeal. Consequently, the Application for bail and suspension of

sentence is rejected and disposed of accordingly.




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




                                     8