Bombay High Court
FIROZ IDRIS KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the independent testimony of PW‑1 creates reasonable doubt regarding the applicant’s participation, warranting suspension of the sentence and grant of bail pending appeal.
Summary
The applicant, convicted of murder (s.302 IPC), dowry death (s.498A IPC) and causing hurt (s.323 IPC), sought suspension of his sentence and bail pending appeal. The prosecution alleged that the applicant murdered his wife, whose body was found strangulated in a water tank, and cited motive of monetary demands. The defence argued lack of direct evidence and highlighted the testimony of an independent neighbour (PW‑1) who stated the house door was latched from outside and the applicant was inside when the body was discovered, creating reasonable doubt. The court examined the medical findings, the delay in filing the FIR, and the credibility of PW‑1’s account, concluding that the evidence did not conclusively link the applicant to the crime. Consequently, the court ordered suspension of the sentence and granted bail with conditions. The decision underscores the importance of reasonable doubt and the role of independent witness testimony in granting bail pending appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence establishes the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt to justify continuation of the sentence.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal despite the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the validity of the conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 323, 34, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- murder
- dowry death
- IPC
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- reasonable doubt
- independent witness
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IA-3224-2026.odt
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3224 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 742 OF 2026
Firoz Idris Khan …Applicant
Digitally
signed by
Versus
ROHIT
ROHIT RAMDAS
RAMDAS GHUGE
GHUGE Date:
2026.10.07 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondent
17:53:13
+0530
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w Mr. Ali Jawad, Advocates for the Applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, APP for the Respondent -State.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 01st OCTOBER 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
28.07.2026 convicting him for offense punishable under Section 302,
498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The Applicant was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
one year for offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. The Applicant was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1
IA-3224-2026.odt
5,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six
months for offence punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC. The Applicant was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one
month for offence punishable u/s 323 of the IPC. All the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Heard, Mr. Sayed, for the Applicant and Ms. Shinde, APP for
Respondent-State, perused the Application and Appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the Applicant and
the deceased were married in the year 2008. The first informant- PW No.
2, the father-in-law of the Applicant has alleged that the Applicant used
to demand money from the first informant and ill treat his daughter
(deceased). On 10.09.2017, the informant received a call from the
Applicant’s father that his daughter had fallen in the water tank
accidentally and lost her life. The informant suspected that his daughter
was murdered and therefore he approached the Police Station on
18.01.2018 and his complaint was recorded, based on which FIR No.
28/2018 came to be registered against the Applicant and his family
members for offences punishable u/s 302, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w
34 of the IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the dead body was forwarded
2
IA-3224-2026.odt
for post mortem, medical opinion shows the cause of death to be
asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, in other words, that the deceased
was strangulated and murdered. The Applicant was arrested on
10.07.2018. 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 four 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 although the
death was homicidal in nature, there was nothing to connect the
Applicant with the commission of the offence as alleged by the
prosecution. It was urged that the evidence of PW No. 1, the panch
witness is crucial since he is the only independent witness in the case. PW
No. 1 has deposed that on the day of the incident he had seen the
deceased going to the bathroom while going for morning Namaz. After
prayers, he came back to his house and was resting when he received a
call from the Applicant at about 7:15 am informing him that the
deceased i.e. wife of the Applicant had gone for shopping and she had
latched the door of their house from outside. The Applicant asked PW
No. 1 to open the door from outside. At that time, he saw the Applicant
along with his three children in the house. He further deposes that 10
minutes later, he heard shouts. People from his lane had gathered there.
3
IA-3224-2026.odt
He saw the deceased lying in the water tank and that there was an odhani
around her neck. Placing reliance on this deposition of PW No. 1, Ld.
Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is no eye witness to this
incident. The only circumstantial evidence against the Applicant is that
body of his wife was found in the water tank in the morning hours on the
date of the incident. The cause of death was due to strangulation and her
odhani was found wrapped around her neck. However, the evidence of
PW No. 1 clearly demonstrates that the Applicant was inside the house
and most importantly the door of the house was latched from outside. It
was opened by PW No. 1 at around 7:15 am when the Applicant was
found inside the house. Almost immediately, the dead body of the
deceased was found in the water tank. It was urged that the evidence of
PW No. 1 demonstrates that it was improbable that the Applicant could
have committed the offence and in view thereof it was prayed that the
sentence of the Applicant deserves to be suspended pending Appeal and
the Applicant deserves to be admitted to bail.
6. Learned APP Ms. Shinde, countered the aforesaid submissions by
arguing that the death was proved to be unnatural and homicidal. There
was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and her odhani was
found wrapped around her neck. PW No. 2 – the father-in-law of the
Applicant has alleged that the Applicant used to ill treat the deceased and
demand money from her family. This, according to the Ld. APP
4
IA-3224-2026.odt
established the motive behind the commission of the offence.
Considering the gravity of the offence, she prayed for rejection of the
Application.
7. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove their case.
PW No. 1 is the only independent witness who happens to be the next
door neighbour of the Applicant. It is not in dispute that the Applicant
along with his wife (the deceased) and their children used to reside
together. The medical evidence establishes that the death is unnatural and
likely to have been caused due to strangulation by the odhani which was
found wrapped around the neck of the deceased. The father in law of the
Applicant, PW No. 2 does allege that there were monetary demands
made by the Applicant and there were instances of ill treatment to the
deceased. However, the cross examination reveals that there were some
payments made by the Applicant to PW No.2 which were denied by him.
The evidence of PW No.1 emerges as the most crucial evidence in the
narrative of the prosecution since he is the only independent witness in
the case. PW No. 1 has deposed that on the day of the incident he had
seen the deceased going to the bathroom while going for morning
prayers. After prayers, he came back to his house and was resting when
he received a call from the Applicant at about 7:15 am informing him
that the deceased i.e. his wife had gone for shopping and she had latched
the door of their house from outside. The Applicant requested PW No. 1
5
IA-3224-2026.odt
to open the door from outside. When he opened the door, PW No. 1 saw
the Applicant along with his three children in the house. Immediately
thereafter, he heard shouts. People from his lane had gathered there. He
saw the deceased lying in the water tank and that there was an odhani
around her neck. PW No. 1 is also the spot panch who has conducted the
spot panchanama. He has deposed that the houses in the neighborhood
had washroom and water tank adjacent to each other and outside the
house. These water tanks were filled with water which was used for
various purposes. He has deposed that there is only one door permitting
ingress and egress out of the house of the Applicant and that door has no
lock from the inside. There is only a latch outside the door. The evidence
of PW No. 1, prima facie demonstrates that the door of the house of the
Applicant was locked from the outside and it was only opened at 7:15
am by PW No. 1. The dead body was noticed in the water tank
immediately thereafter. PW No. 1, also deposes that he has never seen
any quarrel between the Applicant and the deceased and that their family
was a happy family. In fact, he has admitted that it was PW No. 2 who
demanded money from the father of the Applicant for not implicating the
Applicant. One more facet of the case is the delay in lodging the FIR by
the PW No. 2. Although the incident took place on 11.09.2017, the
report was lodged on 18.01.2018. This delay of around 4 months has not
been explained by the informant. The investigating officer has attempted
6
IA-3224-2026.odt
to explain the delay by saying that initially accidental death was
registered and the ADR was filed. However, subsequently, the Police
issued a letter to PW No. 2, pursuant to which he filed the report. No
doubt, the appreciation of evidence is a triable issue but prima facie the
evidence of PW No. 1 creates a reasonable doubt about the complicity of
the Applicant in the commission of the offence alleged.
8. In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, this is a fit case for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the Appeal . Hence, the
following order.
:ORDER:
i) The sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik vide his judgment and order dated
28.07.2026, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2019 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 local
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court.
iii) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of this Court.
7
IA-3224-2026.odt
iv) The Applicant shall inform the Trial Court of his contact
details and residential address alongwith changes therein, if
any.
v) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court on such of the
dates as directed by it to mark his presence.
vi) Infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle
the State to move for cancellation of bail.
Interim Application No. 3224 of 2026 is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
8
Checking your session…