Bombay High Court
RAJESH BUDHAN TUDUversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court suspended the life sentences and granted bail to the appellants pending the final determination of their appeals.
Summary
The High Court considered interim applications filed by two convicts, Rajesh Budhan Tudu and Ganesh Sonaram Murmu, seeking suspension of their life sentences and bail pending appeal against convictions for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, notably that the deceased was last seen with the accused and an extra‑judicial confession recorded on a mobile phone. The court found the confession unreliable because the language (Khortha) was not understood by the recording witness and no proper translation was provided, and it noted a significant delay in the testimony of a key eyewitness. Given the lack of conclusive proof and the appellants’ prolonged incarceration of over six years, the court deemed the case arguable on merits. Consequently, the court ordered suspension of the sentences during the pendency of the appeals and granted bail upon furnishing a bond and complying with reporting conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence and the extra‑judicial confession are sufficient to uphold the conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
- Whether the sentence should be suspended pending the final decision on the appeals.
- Whether bail can be granted to the convicted appellants during the pendency of the appeals.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- conspiracy
- circumstantial evidence
- extra‑judicial confession
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- life imprisonment
- IPC
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:9038-DB
14-APEAL-175-2026.doc
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2026
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2026
Ganesh Sonaram Murmu ...Applicant.
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents.
AND
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 454 OF 2026
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2026
Rajesh Budhan Tudu ...Applicant.
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Romanik Pawar a/w Mr. Abid Sayyed, Mr. Amit Waykool, Ms. Pooja
Deshmukh and Mr. Nadeem Saudagar i/b Mr. S. V. Mahamulkar, Advocates for
the Appellants in both the Applications.
Mrs. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, Addl.PP for the Respondents-State in both the
Applications.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 21, 2026.
P. C. :
1. These are the Applications by the convicts for suspension of
sentence imposed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara,
in Sessions Case No.144/2020 vide Judgment and Order dated
17.06.2026. The operative order of the said Judgment reads as follows :
Sameer 1 of 6
14-APEAL-175-2026.doc
“1. Accused No.1 Rajesh Budhan Tudu is hereby convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months.
2. Accused No.2 Ganesh Sonaram Murmu is hereby convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months.
3. Accused Nos.01 and 02 are hereby acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 201 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… …
5. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… …
6. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… …
7. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… …
8. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… …
9. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… …
10. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. …… ….. …… … ”
2. The case of Prosecution, in brief, is that, the Deceased spread the
words that, his cycle was stolen by Accused No.1 – Rajesh. Therefore,
both the Applicants / Appellants hatched conspiracy and committed the
murder of the Deceased on 31.05.2020 after consuming liquor at one
place. The dead body was found on the next day in one agricultural
field. The police were informed and the crime came to be registered.
After the investigation, the Applicants / Appellants came to be charge-
sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]. After the trial,
the learned Trial Court convicted the Applicants / Appellants by the
impugned Judgment and Order.
Sameer 2 of 6
14-APEAL-175-2026.doc
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants /
Appellants that, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances brought on record by the Prosecution are that, the
Deceased was lastly seen in the company of the Applicants / Appellants
and the Applicants / Appellants made the extra-judicial confession in
respect of the crime. He submits that, the said evidence on record do
not conclusively prove the involvement of the Applicants / Appellants in
the crime. The Applicants / Appellants are behind bars for a period of
more than six (06) years and the Appeals are not likely to be heard
finally in near future. He submits that, the sentence be suspended and
the Applicants / Appellants be released on bail.
4. The Applications are opposed by the learned Addl. PP. She
submits that, the mobile phone of PW – 7 was seized, wherein, the
extra-judicial confession by the Applicants / Appellants was recorded.
The said recording was played before the learned Trial Court and the
same was identified by Witness No.7. She further submits that, the
evidence of PW – 8 shows that, he saw the deceased lastly in the
company of the Applicants / Appellants before the dead body was
found. She further submits that, the blood-stained stone was found
from the spot of incident. She submits that, this evidence is sufficient to
show the involvement of the Applicants / Appellants in the crime and
the Applications be rejected.
Sameer 3 of 6
14-APEAL-175-2026.doc
5. With the assistance of both sides, we have gone through the
relevant evidence on record. The Prosecution’s case is based on
circumstantial evidence. The two circumstances brought on record
against the Applicants / Appellants are that, the Deceased was lastly
seen with them before his death, and the extra-judicial confession.
6. The evidence of PW – 7 goes to show that, the extra-judicial
confession was made to one Umesh, who is admittedly not examined by
the Prosecution. According to PW – 7, the extra-judicial confession was
recorded in his mobile phone when Accused No.2 – Ganesh made the
extra-judicial confession before him. His evidence goes to show that, he
threatened the Accused No.2 – Ganesh for giving the extra-judicial
confession. His further evidence goes to show that, the language, in
which, the extra-judicial confession was made was ‘Khortha’ of
Jharkhand State. There is no evidence or material to show that, the said
language was known to the witness and the Prosecution had prepared a
transcript and translation of the said recording. Therefore, the said
evidence in respect of extra-judicial confession cannot be said to be
proved.
7. As regards the circumstance that, the Deceased was lastly seen in
the company of the Applicants / Appellants, the evidence is that of
Witness No.8. His evidence goes to show that, from one lady, he came
Sameer 4 of 6
14-APEAL-175-2026.doc
to know after two (02) to three (03) days that, one murder of third
person was committed. It is seen from his evidence that, his statement
was recorded by the Police on 17th June, i.e. fourteen (14) days after he
had lastly seen the Deceased with the Applicants / Appellants. There is
nothing to show that, the said delay was explained by the Prosecution.
8. Apart from the aforesaid circumstantial evidence, there is no
evidence to link the Applicants / Appellants with the crime. The
Applicant / Appellant has good arguable case on merits. The
Applicants / Appellants are behind bars for period of more than six (06)
years. The Appeals are of 2026 and not likely to be heard finally in near
future. Thus, we are inclined to pass the following order :
ORDER
[a] The Applications are allowed.
[b] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.144/2020
vide Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2026 on the Applicants /
Appellants, is suspended during pendency of the Appeals.
[c] Applicant - Ganesh Sonaram Murmu in Criminal Appeal
No.445/2026 and Applicant - Rajesh Budhan Tudu in Criminal
Appeal No.454/2026 be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond
of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each, with one (01)
surety in the like amount.
Sameer 5 of 6
14-APEAL-175-2026.doc
[d] The Applicants shall co-operate in early hearing of the Appeals.
[e] The Applicants shall attend the Satara Taluka Police Station once
in three (03) months during daytime.
[f] The Applicants shall furnish details of their permanent address of
native place along with their phone numbers and that of close
relatives to the Jail Authorities. The same shall be done before
they are released on bail.
[g] Bail before the learned Trial Court.
[h] Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sameer 6 of 6
Checking your session…