PRALHAD NARHARI RUPNARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                              3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2026
                               IN
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2026

Pralhad Narhari Rupnar
Age – 27 years, Occupation – Service,
R/at. Mamdapur, Post – Yelda,                         …Applicant/
Taluka – Ambejogai, District – Beed.                    Appellant
(Presently in Yerwada Central Prison)
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Chakan Police Station, Thane)          …Respondent


Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Mr. Samay Pawar, Advocate for the
      Applicant/Appellant.
Mrs. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent.


                       CORAM:     BHARATI DANGRE &
                                  MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

                       DATED:     25th JUNE 2026.
PC:-

1.      Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.

2.      By this application filed under Section 389 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”, for short), the applicant seeks
suspension of sentence imposed upon him vide judgment and
order dated 11th August, 2025 passed by the Additional
Session Judge Khed Rajgurunagar, Pune in Sessions Case No.
31 of 2018, whereby he has been convicted for the offence




                             Page 1 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                             3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC




punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC”, for short).

3.      Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on
him, the Applicant/Appellant has approached this Court by
way of filing an Appeal, which is pending decision before this
Court. Thus, pending the hearing and final disposal of the
said Appeal, the present application has been filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and
release of the Applicant on bail.

4.      The learned advocate Mr. Joshi contends that, the
impugned judgment and order of conviction is perverse,
contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be
set aside. It is submitted that, the prosecution has failed to
establish the presence of the Applicant during the alleged
incident. The trial Court has convicted the Applicant solely
on the basis of the testimony of P.W.5, a child witness, who in
fact, has stated in his cross examination that, the Applicant
was not present at the time of alleged incident. He further
submitted that the trial Court has also placed reliance upon
the alleged recovery of clothes at the instance of the
Applicant. It is contended that, the place from where the
clothes were allegedly recovered, was not secured or
protected by the investigating agency prior to effecting its
recovery. The alleged recovery of clothes at the instance of
Applicant thus, it is vulnerable. The prosecution has failed to
prove the complicity of the Applicant in the commission of




                            Page 2 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                              3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC




the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Yet the learned
trial Judge proceeded to pass an order of conviction.
5.      It is submitted that the Applicant has been in custody,
undergoing the sentence for more than seven years. Thus,
based on the available evidence, the impugned order of
conviction of the Applicant for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC, is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt, hence it is required to be quashed and set aside.
Therefore, the substantive sentence imposed upon the
Applicant deserves to be suspended and he may be enlarged
on bail, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem
fit.

6.      Per contra, the learned APP Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, has
opposed the application contenting that, this is not a case for
granting suspension of sentence, since it is based on direct
evidence i.e. the testimony of son of the accused himself. In
his testimony, the son of Applicant, namely, Soham Pralhad
Rupnar, who was aged 14 years at the time of recording his
deposition, has narrated the incident that had taken place in
his presence leading to the death of his mother at the hands
of his father i.e. Applicant. He has categorically stated that
he was present during the incident and that he had seen his
father assaulting his mother in the wee hours of the morning.
His mother was assaulted on her head by his father, and
thereafter, he too was assaulted on his back, with a belt, and
was threatened not to make any noise. Thereafter, his father
took him out of the house. He also stated that, after
committing the offence, the Applicant had tried to commit



                            Page 3 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                             3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC




suicide. Thus, according to the learned APP Ms. Shinde,
considering the testimony of the eyewitness, which is very
much reliable and trustworthy, the judgment and order of
conviction has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Khed-Rajgurunagar, Pune, and the same does not deserve
any interference.

7.      We have gone through the judgment as well as the notes
of evidence placed on record by the Applicant. The charge
against the Applicant is that he had committed murder of his
wife, Yashoda @ Pratiksha Pralhad Rupnar, and of destroying
the evidence and screening himself from legal consequences.

8.      P.W. 5 is a child eyewitness, who is the son of the
accused–Applicant. He was present during the incident
leading to the offence. He has unequivocally stated in his
deposition that, while they were residing at Chakan, he was
studying in the first standard. He was present when the
Applicant i.e. his father has choked the deceased with his
feet and also assaulted her with iron rod, which proved to be
fatal. He further narrated that, after the incident, he was
taken away by the Applicant along with him. They traveled
in ST bus to their village Mamdapur and after reaching the
village, his father had consumed poison. Nothing fatal to the
story of prosecution could be elicited from this witness in his
cross–examination, to disbelieve him. His statement has also
been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He being an
eye witness, he had narrated the incident which is consistent
with his testimony. Apart from testimony of P. W. 5, the



                            Page 4 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                                 3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC




prosecution has also relied on the testimony of P.W. 9 Dr.
Sampat Baburao Kedare, who conducted the post-mortem.
He has stated that, there was an incised wound over right
side of nape of neck, which was oblique of size 3.5 c.m. long x
2.5 c.m. deep x 1.5 c.m. wide.

        These   injuries   support     the   version   of   P.W.     5
eyewitness, who has categorically stated that, the accused
has choked the neck of the deceased with his feet. Even the
statement of P.W. 5 regarding gagging the mouth of his
mother with the scarf is supported in the post-mortem
report. Considering the substantive evidence in the form of
deposition of P.W. 5, who is an eye witness which is
corroborated by the medical evidence, i.e. deposition of P.W.
9, we do not find any case is made out for grant of suspension
of sentence and enlargement on bail by the Applicant. Hence,
the Application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.




 (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)                  (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)




                             Page 5 of 5

Rajeshri Aher