Bombay High Court
Pushkar Jayant MhatreversusState of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision court quashed the order and discharged the applicant from Section 323 IPC due to lack of evidence.
Summary
Pushkar Jayant Mhatre appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had discharged him only from the charge under Section 305 IPC while rejecting his discharge from Section 323 IPC. The prosecution alleged that Mhatre and co‑accused had slapped the deceased and taken his mobile phones, leading to the deceased's suicide. The applicant contended that the FIR described the assailant as an "unknown person," no test identification parade was conducted, and there was no witness statement linking him to the assault. The High Court examined the evidentiary record, noted the absence of any identification or testimonial evidence against the applicant, and concluded that the charge under Section 323 could not stand. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, discharged the applicant from Section 323 IPC, and disposed of all pending applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the charge under Section 323 IPC against the applicant.
- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge partially allowing the discharge should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 305, 323
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 305 IPC
- suicide
- identification parade
- evidence
- FIR
Judgment
4-REVN-28-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2025
Pushkar Jayant Mhatre ...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
Mr.Darshit Jain a/w Mr.Tejas Padwal and Ms.Devanshi B., for the
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH Applicant.
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.07
16:31:49 +0530
Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Digvijay S. Kachare, for Respondent No.2 (Appointed Advocate).
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Application is to the order dated 16 th
December 2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10 th Court,
Greater Mumbai, whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the
Discharge Application at Exhibit-05 in Session Case No.511 of 2017, filed
by the Applicant. The Applicant was discharged from Section 305 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) only and his prayer to be
discharged from Section 323 of the IPC was rejected.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 7th April 2016, the Applicant and
co-accused took away the mobile phones of the deceased and his friends.
They slapped him on account of smoking behind a residential apartment
Page 1 of 3
4-REVN-28-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
with his friends. Due to the said act, the deceased committed suicide.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that in
the FIR, name of the Applicant is not mentioned. It is mentioned that
unknown persons slapped the deceased. The Test Identification Parade was
not taken. There is no witness statement to show that Applicant slapped the
deceased. There is no case at all against the Applicant, but this fact has not
been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and requested to allow the
Application.
4. It is contention of the learned APP alongwith learned counsel
for Respondent No.2 that the Applicant and co-accused slapped the
deceased and his friend, took away their mobile phones and asked them to
collect it from the Police Station. Due to threatening and slapping by the
Applicant and the co-accused, the deceased committed suicide. There are
specific allegations against the Applicant about slapping the deceased. The
learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order, no interference is
required in it. There is prima facie case against the Applicant and requested
to reject the Application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and
documents produced on record.
6. In the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that an unknown person
Page 2 of 3
4-REVN-28-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
slapped the deceased. After arrest of the Applicant, no Test Identification
Parade was taken. There is no witness statement to show that the Applicant
had slapped the deceased. The Applicant has been discharged from Section
305 of the IPC, as there is no evidence regarding slapping the deceased by
the Applicant. He cannot be tried for the said offence. This fact has not
been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16th December 2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Greater
Mumbai, below Exhibit-05 in Sessions Case No.511 of 2017
is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Applicant is discharged from Section 323 of IPC
in Sessions Case No.511 of 2017.
(iv) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…