Bombay High Court
RAHUL ALIAS LAXMAN RAMCHANDRA JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The substantive sentence imposed on the appellant is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Rahul alias Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav, was convicted of murder under IPC 302 and voluntarily causing hurt under IPC 341, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine, based largely on his own confession and blood‑stained clothing. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence pending the pending appeal, arguing that the evidence was weak and that he had already served over ten years. The State opposed, contending that the confession and corroborative witness testimony justified the conviction. The Court observed that the confession is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the witness statements did not conclusively place the appellant with the deceased, leaving only the blood‑stained clothes as evidence, which required re‑appreciation at the appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, suspending the substantive sentence during the pendency of the appeal and granting bail on a bond. The appellant was directed to cooperate for an early hearing of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's confession, recorded by police, is admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Whether the remaining evidence (blood‑stained clothes and witness testimony) is sufficient to sustain the conviction for murder and hurt.
- Whether the sentence may be suspended pending the final hearing of the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 235(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 25, 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 341
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- confession
- evidence
- suspension of sentence
- bail
- life imprisonment
- murder
- Indian Evidence Act
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8642-DB
17-CRIA-87-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2026
IN CR. APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2026
Rahul Alias Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav ...Applicant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.
——————
Mr. Rahul R Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 07, 2026.
P. C. :
1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, in Sessions Case No.21/2016,
by Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022, convicting and sentencing
the Applicant – Appellant as follows :
“1) The accused Rahul @ Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav, is
convicted under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with C.R.No.46 of
2015 registered with Dhebewadi Police Station, District
Satara and he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only), in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6
(six) months.
2) He is further convicted under Section 235(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable under
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (One) month
and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five Hundred only), in default
of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
7 (Seven) days.
Sameer 1 of 5
17-CRIA-87-2026.doc
3) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
4) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
5) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
6) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
7) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
8) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
9) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..”
2. The Prosecution's case, as can be seen from the impugned
Judgment, is that, the Applicant - Appellant himself went to the
Dhebewadi Police Station, District – Satara on 06.11.2015 and confessed
that, he committed the murder of Sandip Chavan, who was the cousin
brother of the girl with whom the Applicant - Appellant was having
friendly relations. The police registered the crime. During investigation,
the statements of witnesses were recorded, and the clothes of the
Applicant - Appellant came to be seized. The report of the Chemical
Analyser disclosed that, the blood of the deceased was found on the
Applicant’s - Appellant’s clothes. The charge-sheet was filed. The
Applicant - Appellant came to be tried and convicted as above.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant -
Appellant that, the evidence against the Applicant - Appellant is of last
seen together, the report lodged by the Applicant - Appellant himself,
and blood-stained clothes. He submits that, the Applicant - Appellant is
behind bars for a period of more than ten (10) years. The Appeal will
take time to come up for final hearing. He submits that, the Applicant -
Sameer 2 of 5
17-CRIA-87-2026.doc
Appellant will co-operate with this Court for early hearing of the
Appeal. He submits that, the Application be allowed.
4. It is submitted by the learned APP for the Respondent – State
that, the Applicant - Appellant himself went to the police station and
confessed the crime. The crime was registered on the report lodged by
the Applicant - Appellant. Two witnesses are examined by the
Prosecution to show that, the Applicant - Appellant was last seen with
the deceased. The dead body was discovered at the instance of the
Applicant – Appellant. The clothes of the Applicant - Appellant were
found stained with the blood group of the deceased. She submits that,
the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record,
and no case for suspension of sentence is made out, and the Application
be rejected.
5. With the assistance of both the sides, we have gone through the
notes of evidence. Though the Prosecution examined PW No.11 – Ajay
Dinkar Matekar and PW No.13 – Tanaji Baburao Lokare on the point of
last seen, the evidence of the said witnesses nowhere shows that, they
saw the Applicant - Appellant in the company of the deceased soon
before the incident. Therefore, the said evidence cannot be said to be
on the point of last seen together. The papers show that, the crime was
registered on the report lodged by the Applicant - Appellant. The said
Sameer 3 of 5
17-CRIA-87-2026.doc
amount to confession, proof of which is prohibited by the provisions of
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the said Act’). Though the evidence of PW – 3 – Somnath Baban Patil
shows that, he went to the police station at 03:00 p.m. and he was
panch to the discovery of the dead body under Section 27 of the said
Act, his cross-examination shows that, when they reached on the spot
along with the Applicant – Appellant, relatives of the deceased, the
police patil, policemen and villagers were already present on the spot.
Further, the evidence of PW – 13 - Tanaji Baburao Lokare shows that,
when he returned at 01:00 p.m. from work, he learnt from Tanta Mukti
President Sunil Chavan that, the murder had taken place where he saw
the Applicant – Appellant in the morning. This evidence on record do no
conclusively establish that, the dead body was discovered only at the
instance of the Applicant – Appellant. What the said evidence indicates
is that, the body was already found. Therefore, the evidence under
Section 27 of the said Act would not be relevant. The only evidence
against the Applicant - Appellant is the blood-stained clothes. Whether
the said evidence is sufficient to maintain the conviction will be
examined at the time of final hearing when the evidence will be re-
appreciated. The Applicant - Appellant is behind bars for more than ten
(10) years. The Appeal is of 2026 and there is no possibility that, the
Appeal would be heard in the near future. Hence, we proceed to pass
Sameer 4 of 5
17-CRIA-87-2026.doc
the following order :
ORDER
[a] The Application is allowed.
[b] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Karad in Sessions Case No.21/2016, by the
Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022 on the Applicant /
Appellant, is suspended during pendency of the Appeal.
[c] Applicant / Appellant - Rahul Alias Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav 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.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sameer 5 of 5
Checking your session…