SANGITA W/O GAUTAM CHOUTHMALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:7943
                                                 1                   1000-CrWP-1258-24.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1258 OF 2024


                Sangita w/o. Gautam Chouthmal
                Age 40 years, Occu. Household
                R/o. Nakshatra Park, Rangin Building
                Plot No.3, Paithan Road, Aurangabad             ..     Petitioner

                           Versus

                1.   The State of Maharashtra
                     through Satara Police Station
                     Aurangabad

                2.   Ritesh s/o. Arun Suradkar
                     Age 24 years, Occupation Labour
                     R/o. Nakshatra Park, Magmalhar Society,
                     Plot No.11, Nakshatrawadi, Aurangabad ..          Respondents


                Mr. Shaikh Afreen R. Advocate for Petitioner;
                Ms. R. R. Tandale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1;
                Mr. Nagesh J. Sonune, Advocate for Respondent No.2


                                          CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                          DATE       :   12-02-2026
                PER COURT:-

                1.   The petitioner seeks setting aside and quashing of the order

                rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad,

                below application Exhibit-18, in Sessions Case No.244 of 2021,

                dated 21.02.2024, rejecting to frame additional charge under

                Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
                                  2                  1000-CrWP-1258-24.odt



2.      The petitioner lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against

Respondent No. 2 on 20.02.2021. The incident occurred during a

Haldi ceremony for Swapnil Katkure, a resident of Nakshatra Park

Society. At approximately 9:30 p.m., the petitioner’s son, Nitin, was

conversing with a friend near their building when Respondent No.

2 (the accused) approached and pressured him to dance at the

function. Nitin declined, leading Respondent No. 2 to use force and

initiate a quarrel. Nitin subsequently returned home and informed

his parents and sister of the confrontation. When the petitioner,

accompanied by Nitin and her daughter, went to the parking area

to address the matter, they found Respondent No. 2 standing with

his sister and mother. Despite the petitioner’s attempt to resolve

the issue through dialogue, Respondent No. 2 began hurling

abuses.


3.      The petitioner’s husband, Gautam Chouthmal, then arrived

and also attempted to pacify the accused. However, Respondent

No. 2 refused to listen, picked up a brick, and struck Gautam on

the head. Gautam sustained grievous injuries and was initially

admitted to M.G.M. Hospital, Aurangabad, before being transferred

to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad.

Following the assault, the petitioner filed a complaint at the Satara

Police Station under Sections 326 and 504 of the Indian Penal

Code.
                               3                 1000-CrWP-1258-24.odt



4.   Subsequently,    on    25.02.2021,    Gautam       Chouthmal

succumbed to his injuries during the course of his medical

treatment. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed against

Respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part

II), 326, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court

eventually framed charges against Respondent No. 2 under these

same sections.


5.   Thereafter, on 21.02.2024, the prosecution moved an

application to add a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code against Respondent No. 2. The application contended that,

as per the FIR, Respondent No. 2 intentionally assaulted the

deceased with the intent to cause death. It was further submitted

that both the medical evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses

corroborate the informant’s version of the event. In response,

Respondent No. 2 filed a reply (say) stating that the Court had

already adjudicated the matter while framing charge.


6.   The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application vide the

order under challenge. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has

preferred the present petition seeking to quash and set aside the

impugned order and to direct the framing of an additional charge

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the

accused/Respondent No. 2.
                                  4                  1000-CrWP-1258-24.odt



7.    In light of the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the

petitioner/informant submits that the trial court erred in passing

the order under challenge, rendering it unjust, improper, and

illegal. It is contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that

Respondent No. 2 intentionally weaponized a brick to strike the

deceased on the head, which ultimately resulted in his death.

Counsel further submits that this aspect of intentional assault is

squarely corroborated by both the medical evidence and the

testimonies of eyewitnesses. Consequently, the trial court ought to

have exercised its jurisdiction to frame an additional charge under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.


8.    The learned APP has assisted the Court by placing the

relevant records and the medical certificate of the deceased. The

learned APP submitted that the Court may consider the material

on record and pass an appropriate order as it deems fit in the facts

and circumstances of the case.


9.    Per contra, Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/accused

supported the order under challenge, submitting that the trial

court passed an appropriate and well-reasoned order. It is

contended that the essential ingredient of mens rea, necessary to

constitute an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

is entirely absent. Counsel further submits that even if the

allegations in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, they do not
                                 5                  1000-CrWP-1258-24.odt



satisfy the legal requirements of Section 302. There is no evidence

of an intention to kill, nor any knowledge that the alleged act was

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Given

that charges have already been framed, it is argued that there is

no requirement to add a charge under Section 302. Consequently,

prayed to dismissed the petition.


10.   Having considered the submissions from both sides and

upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the accused, in the

heat of the moment, picked up a brick and struck the deceased on

the head. Furthermore, the FIR and the investigating papers do not

disclose any allegations of premeditation or intent to kill on the

part of the applicant. While the husband of the informant

succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment, there is

no material on record to infer motive, knowledge, or intent to

commit murder. Consequently, the case squarely falls within the

scope of the charges already framed by the trial court.


11.   Resultantly, no error is noted in the well reasoned order

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad.


12.   Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed.




                                 [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                         JUDGE

rrd