Bombay High Court
Bharat Janaku WayalversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A solitary, delayed witness statement without corroboration is insufficient to sustain the charges, and the applicant is entitled to discharge.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil, filed a revision application challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order that rejected his discharge in a murder case arising from a land dispute. The prosecution alleged that the applicant conspired with co‑accused to murder the husband of the first informant, relying primarily on the statement of witness Abhijeet Yalbar, who claimed to have overheard a conspiratorial conversation. The applicant contended that no other evidence linked him to the crime and that the witness statement, recorded ten days after the incident, was unreliable. The High Court examined the credibility of the lone witness statement and found it insufficient to sustain the charges against the applicant. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision, quashed the earlier order, and discharged the applicant from offences under the IPC and the Arms Act. The pending interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the evidentiary value of a solitary witness statement recorded ten days after the alleged offence without corroboration?
- Whether the continuation of trial on the basis of such statement would constitute an abuse of the process of law?
- Whether the applicant is entitled to discharge from the charges under Sections 302, 120(B), 1960 of the IPC and Sections 4, 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 27, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 1960, 302
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- revision
- discharge
- evidence
- witness statement
- conspiracy
- murder
- Arms Act
- IPC
Judgment
3-REVN-445-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2025
VAISHALI
Bharat Janaku Wayal ...Applicant/s
ANIL VERSUS
TIKAM The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
WITH
Date:
2026.09.24
12:08:19 +0530 CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3798 OF 2025
IN REVN/445/2025
Bharat Janaku Wayal ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. M/s. Juhi Kadu a/w. M/s. Savry Kolhekar,
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for
the State.
2. The challenge in this application is the order passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Khed – Rajgurunagar, Dist. Pune. rejecting the
discharge application of the Applicant.
3. It is prosecution’s case that Applicant and co-accused murdered
the husband of the First Informant on the ground of land dispute.
Page 1 of 3
3-REVN-445-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that there
are specific allegations against Accused No.1 – Amar Vayal about killing
the deceased. The allegations against the Applicant are that the Applicant
along with co-accused conspired to kill the deceased. Except the statement
of Abhijeet Yalbar, there is no evidence produced to show the involvement
of the applicant in the crime. But this fact is not considered by the
Learned Additional Sessions Court and requested to allow the Revision
Application.
5. It is contention of learned APP that land dispute was going on
between Applicant and the deceased and due to the said land dispute, the
complaints were filed against each other. Applicant and Co-accused
conspired to kill the deceased. Accordingly Accused No.1 murdered the
deceased. To prove the conspiracy, evidence is required. The statement
of witness Abhijeet Yalbar shows the angle of conspiracy. The Learned
Additional Session Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference
is required in it and requested to rejected the application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record. The prosecution's case against the
Applicant is based on the statement of Abhijeet Yelbar, where he has
stated that on 15/10/2021, he overheard the conversation between
Applicant and co-accused. Except this statement, no other evidence is
Page 2 of 3
3-REVN-445-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
produced on record to show the involvement of the Applicant in the crime.
In my view, the statement of this witness was recorded after 10 days of the
incident. This witness did not inform about overheard conversation to the
deceased or the family members. Hence, merely a statement cannot be
considered as cogent evidence against the Applicant. As per the statement
of eye witnesses Accused No.1 murdered the deceased. If trial is
continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. In view of above, I
pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the Learned Additional
Session Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, Dist. Pune in Exhibit-13 in
Sessions Case No. 39 of 2022 is quashed and set aside and the
Applicant is discharged from the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120(B) of IPC, 1960 and under Section 4,25,27 of
the Arms Act, 1959.
(iii) Revision Application is disposed of.
(iv) Pending Interim Application is also disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…