Bombay High Court
SAURBH DADYA DNYANESHWAR GOLESARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The application is allowed; the charge framed against the applicant is quashed and the applicant is discharged due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Summary
The applicant, Saurbh Dadya Dnyaneshwar Golesar, was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a woman on 8 August 2021. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was present outside the victim's house while a co‑accused committed the murder. The defence argued that there was no witness statement, call record, or other material linking the applicant to the crime, and that the only basis for his implication was the co‑accused’s statement. The court examined the evidence and found no substantive proof of the applicant’s participation or abetment. Consequently, the court held that proceeding with the trial would amount to an abuse of process and quashed the charge, discharging the applicant. All pending applications in the matter were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the applicant.
- Whether the charge framed against the applicant should be quashed and the applicant discharged.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- charge framing
- discharge
- insufficient evidence
- abuse of process of law
- criminal revision
Judgment
5-REVN-48-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2026
Saurbh Dadya Dnyaneshwar Golesar ...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Digitally signed
by NILAM
____________________________________________________________
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date:
2026.08.25
Mr.Arpit N. Mutha, for the Applicant.
14:39:29 +0530
Mr.S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Application is to the order dated 7 th
October 2025, below Exhibit-20, whereby learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik Road, Nashik framed charge against the Applicant in
Sessions Case No.232 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 8 th August 2021, the sister of First
Informant was found dead in her house. It is alleged that the Applicant and
co-accused murdered her.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the
main allegations are against the Accused No.1. The only allegation against
the Applicant is that while crime was being committed by Accused No.1, the
Page 1 of 3
5-REVN-48-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
Applicant was standing outside the house of the deceased and thereafter
they left the place after locking the deceased in the house. Except this
allegation, there are no allegations against the Applicant.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no statement
of witness recorded to show that the Applicant was present at the time of the
incident. On the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the Applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. If trial is continued against the
Applicant, it would amount to abuse of process of law and requested to allow
the Application.
5. It is contention of the learned APP that sister of First Informant
was murdered by Accused No.1. At the time of the incident, the Applicant
was with accused No.1. He stood outside the house of the deceased,
whereas Accused No.1 committed murder of the deceased. It shows
involvement of the Applicant in the crime. There is prima facie case against
the Applicant. To prove the innocence of the Applicant, trial is required.
The charge has been framed against the Applicant and requested to reject
the Application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused documents produced
on record.
7. The allegations against the Applicant are that he was present with
Page 2 of 3
5-REVN-48-2026 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
the co-accused at the time of the murder and was standing outside the house
of the deceased. The Applicant has been falsely roped in the present crime
on the basis of statement of the co-accused. There is no statement of any
witness to show that the Applicant was standing outside the house of the
deceased. There are no call records produced on record to show
communication between the Applicant and co-accused. Nothing is
produced on record to connect the Applicant with the crime. There is no
sufficient evidence to involve the Applicant for the alleged offence. If trial
is continued against the Applicant, it would amount to abuse of process of
law. There is no case at all against the Applicant, hence I pass following
order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The order of framing charge dated 7th October 2025,
below Exhibit-20, against the Applicant in Sessions Case
No.232 of 2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik Road, Nashik, is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Applicant is discharged in Sessions Case No.232
of 2025.
(iv) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…