Bombay High Court
MUKESH RAJU SATAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the sentence should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Summary
Mukesh Raju Satam was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, for murder under Section 302 IPC and for dacoity‑related offences under Sections 394 and 397 IPC, receiving life imprisonment and a term of rigorous imprisonment respectively. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence, arguing that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence and that he had already spent over nine years in custody, making it unlikely the appeal would be heard soon. The State opposed, contending that eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the deceased’s gold ornaments linked the appellant to the crime. The Court examined the evidentiary gaps, noting inconsistencies in the description of the ornaments and the lack of proof that the blood on the appellant’s clothes belonged to the deceased, and concluded that the merits of the appeal were arguable. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application, suspending the sentence pending the appeal and granting bail on a bond of Rs.15,000. The appellant was directed to cooperate for an early hearing of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the sentence imposed on Mukesh Raju Satam should be suspended pending the pendency of his appeal
- Whether the circumstances of the case warrant granting bail given the length of incarceration and the nature of the evidence
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 235
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 394, 397
Subjects
- suspension of sentence
- appeal pending
- circumstantial evidence
- bail
- criminal procedure
- life imprisonment
- rigorous imprisonment
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:9427-DB
6-APEAL-1288-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3893 OF 2022
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2022
Mukesh Raju Satam ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
——————
Ms. Pallavi S. Kante, Advocate for the Applicant / Appellant.
Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent - State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 30, 2026.
P. C. :
[I] ORDER IN CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3893 OF 2022 :
1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros, in Sessions Case
No.29/2017 vide Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2019, convicting
and sentencing the Applicant / Appellant as follows :
“[i] Accused Mukesh Raju Satam is hereby convicted as per
Section 235 [ii] of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- [Five thousand only], in
default to suffer S.I. for six months.
[ii] Accused Mukesh Raju Satam is hereby convicted as per
Section 235 [ii] of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under
Section 394 read with section 397 of IPC and he is sentenced
to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of
Sameer 1 of 5
6-APEAL-1288-2022.doc
Rs.5,000/- [Five thousand only], in default to suffer S.I. for six
months.
[iii] …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….
….
[iv] …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….
….
[v] …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….
….
[vi] …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….
….
[vii] …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….
….”
2. It is the case of the Prosecution that, the Applicant /
Appellant, who is the maternal relative of the first Informant, had
committed the murder of the paternal aunt of the Informant on
27.06.2017, when the Deceased was alone in the house of the
Informant. The Informant and his parents had gone to the
agricultural field. When the Informant came home around 04:00
p.m., he saw the Applicant / Appellant nearby his house, i.e. behind
the house near the well. The Informant found his paternal aunt in
dead condition in pool of blood inside the house. He raised hue and
cry. The matter was informed to the Police and Crime No.33/2017
came to be registered with Vijaydurg Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]. During investigation, the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC came to be added in the crime.
On completion of investigation, the Applicant / Appellant came to
Sameer 2 of 5
6-APEAL-1288-2022.doc
be charge-sheeted, tried, convicted and sentenced by the learned
Trial Court.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant /
Appellant that, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances against the Applicant / Appellant are the recovery /
discovery of gold ornaments while he was in police custody, and the
blood-stained clothes, wherein the human blood was found. She
submits that, there is no evidence to link the Applicant / Appellant
with the murder of the paternal aunt of the Informant. She submits
that, the Applicant / Appellant is behind bars for a period of nine
(09) years and three (03) months and there is no likelihood that, the
Appeal would be heard in near future. She submits that, the
Application be allowed.
4. The Application is opposed by the learned APP. She submits
that, apart from the evidence of the Informant that, he saw the
Applicant / Appellant near the place of incident, there is evidence
of another witness, who saw the Applicant / Appellant going
towards the house of Informant where the incident had taken place.
She further submits that, the ornaments of the Deceased were
discovered / recovered at the instance of the Applicant / Appellant.
She submits that, the Applicant / Appellant has been identified by
Sameer 3 of 5
6-APEAL-1288-2022.doc
the witness before the learned Trial Court. She submits that, the
Prosecution has proved the circumstances against the Applicant /
Appellant. She submits that, the learned Trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned Judgment and Order and the Application be
rejected.
5. Undisputedly, the case of Prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. According to the Prosecution, the two
circumstances against the Applicant / Appellant are that, the gold
ornaments of the Deceased were discovered / recovered at the
instance of the Applicant / Appellant and the blood was found on
the clothes of the Applicant / Appellant. As regards the gold
ornaments, from the description of the ornaments mentioned in
the charge-sheet and the muddemal list, it is seen that, the same
are not matching with each other. As regards the blood found on
the clothes of the Applicant / Appellant is concerned, the CA report
shows that, it was human blood. There is nothing to show that, the
blood of the Deceased was found on the clothes of the Applicant /
Appellant. These aspects show that, the Applicant / Appellant is
having arguable case on merits. The Applicant / Appellant is behind
bars for a period of more than nine (09) years. There is no likelihood
that, the Appeal would be finally heard in near future. In this view
of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order :
Sameer 4 of 5
6-APEAL-1288-2022.doc
ORDER
[a] The Application is allowed.
[b] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sindudurg at Oros, in Sessions Case No.29/2017 vide
Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2019 on the Applicant /
Appellant, is suspended during pendency of the Appeal.
[c] Applicant - Mukesh Raju Satam be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount.
[d] The Applicant shall co-operate in early hearing of the Appeal.
[e] Bail before the learned Trial Court.
[f] Application stands disposed of accordingly.
[II] ORDER IN CR. APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2022 :
1. In view of the appearance of learned Counsel Ms. Pallavi S.
Kante for the Applicant / Appellant, the appearance of learned
Counsel Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar stands discharged.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sameer 5 of 5
Checking your session…