Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Savita Kamlakar Kokate vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 749 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 749 Bom
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2016

Bombay High Court
Savita Kamlakar Kokate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
                                        (1)                             crap99.13




                                                                        
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  99 OF 2013
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2013




                                               
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2013

                                      *******




                                       
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  99 OF 2013

    Savita Kamlakar Kokate
                                
    Age. 34 years, Occ. Household,
                                                         ..       Appellant
                                                                  [original
    R/o. Dastapur, Tal. Lohara,                                   accused 
                               
    Dist. Osmanabad.                                              No.3]
                                Versus

    The State of Maharashtra                             ..       Respondent
       


    Mr.Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the appellant.
    Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
    



                                     WITH
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  109 OF 2013





    Devidas Walchand Rathod                  ..                   Appellant
    Age. 47 years, Occ. Agri,                                     [original
    R/o. Tugaon Chaugule Wasti, Tal. Omerga,                      accused
    Dist. Osmanabad.                                              No.2]
                               Versus





    The State of Maharashtra                             ..       Respondent

    Mr.B.R. Survase, Advocate for the appellant.
    Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State.




       ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2016             ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:29:38 :::
                                          (2)                                crap99.13




                                                                            
                                        WITH
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2013




                                                    
    Kamlakar s/o. Ram Rathod                                 ..       Appellant
    Age. 44 years, Occ. Agril,                                        [original
    R/o. Tugaon, Tal. Omerga,                                         accused 
    Dist. Osmanabad.




                                                   
                                                                      No.1]

                                         Versus

    The State of Maharashtra                                 ..       Respondent




                                         
    Mr.R.A. Jaiswal h/f. Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the 
                                  
    appellant.
    Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
                                 
                                         CORAM :  A.V.NIRGUDE &
                                                  INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.

DATED : 18.03.2016

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]:-

1. All these three appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment. All these appeals challenge

judgment and order dated 25.02.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Omerga in Sessions Case No.123 of 2011. The appellants herein were accused before the Trial

Court. Learned Sessions Judge convicted all the accused for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- each with default clause.

(3) crap99.13

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under. The

parties to the appeal would be referred as per their status in the lower Court :-

. Deceased Vithal was father-in-law of accused

No.3, who is a widow. Accused No.1-Kamlakar was cultivating land belonging to deceased Vithal on contract basis. He had illicit relations with accused No.3-

Savita. Accused No.2-Devidas was a relative of accused

No.1. Vithal had decided to take away his land from cultivation of accused No.1-Kamlakar. To this proposal,

accused No.3-Savita had strong objection. The accused, thus, had reason to get aggrieved and it is stated that they had motive to eliminate Vithal. On 23 rd May, 2011

early in the morning Vidhal's dead body was found near

village Borman Tanda. It was found that Vithal was Murdered. He had sustained many injuries. Police was informed. They registered offence and started

investigation. On 25th May, 2011 the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was sent and as said above after trial as many as 15 witnesses were examined and the accused were

convicted.

3. Learned Counsel for appellant in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2013 Mr. Salunke asserted that this was a case

(4) crap99.13

of no evidence and yet learned Sessions Judge convicted his client and others. He took us through entire record

and now we are inclined to accept Mr.Salunke's contention that this is a case that there was no evidence at all. Yet, in order to complete formality of judgment, we would

make a gist of relevant circumstances that are brought on record.

4. P.W.15-Vithal Kale (ASI) stated that the police

of Naldurg Police Station received information on 23 rd May, 2011 in the morning that a dead body was lying near

village Boraman Tanda. Police then went there and after inquest, sent dead body for post-mortem. Doctor opined that the deceased died due to strangulation. The post-

mortem report on record has gone on record un-

controverted. It shows that Vithal was first assaulted and thereafter strangulated with rope like object. With this evidence on record, the prosecution could establish

that Vithal died homicidal death.

5. P.W.5-Bhaskar and P.W.13-Bandu, who are near relatives of deceased Vithal, asserted that there was

illicit relation between accused No.1-Kamlakar and accused No.3-Savita. They had seen accused No.1-Kamlakar visiting accused No.3-Savita's house.

(5) crap99.13

6. We have no difficulty in accepting this part of prosecution case. Such relationship is not secret in

villages and therefore we would not disbelieve the witnesses when they stated that accused No.1-Kamlakar and accused No.3-Savita had illicit relation. These two

witnesses also stated that Vithal had told that he was intending to take away land which was given to accused No.1-Kamlakar for cultivation and the proposal of

staunchly opposed by accused No.3. On account of this,

there was quarrel between deceased Vithal and accused No.1-Kamlakar and accused No.3-Savita together. We are

inclined to believe this part of the prosecution case also. We are, therefore, inclined to even believe that the accused had developed a grudge against deceased

Vithal.

7. In has come in the deposition of P.W.5-Bhaskar that on 21.05.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. he entered the

house of accused No.3 and saw accused No.1-Kamlakar and accused No.2-Devidas sitting with her and discussing something. He said that as soon as he entered the house they stopped talking. This circumstance according to the

prosecution would amount to conspiracy being hatched amongst the accused for committing Vithal's murder. We are not inclined to accept this conclusion of the prosecution though we are inclined to believe prosecution

(6) crap99.13

witness No.5 that on 21st May, 2011 he had an occasion to go inside the house of accused No.3-Savita and had

occasion to see accused No.1 - Kamlakar and accused No.2- Devidas sitting with her discussing something. This witness did not hear the discussion. It is, therefore,

hazardous to make guess that the accused were conspiring and plotting Vithal's murder. On the basis of this piece of evidence no one can draw such conclusion.

8. The next piece of evidence on which prosecution

placed reliance is the fact that after arrest the Investigating Officer took in charge the clothes of accused No.1 - Kamlakar and accused No.2 - Devidas.

These clothes were then sent for medical analysis and

then it was found that they were stained with human blood of group "A". The victim's blood group was also "A". Unfortunately for the prosecution, the blood group of

accused No.1 - Kamlakar and accused No.2-Devidas thus cannot conclusively connect them to the murder.

9. The last circumstance of the prosecution case is

the fact that near the dead body of Vithal, they found piece of key-chain. It was a peculiar key-chain having word "Raje" inscribed on it. P.W.5-Bhaskar stated that he had seen similar key-chain on accused No.1-Kamlakar's

(7) crap99.13

motor-cycle. The prosecution, however, did not bring on record that the part of the key-chain that was found on

the spot was belonging to accused No.1 only. No witness came forward to depose that the key-chain found at the scene of occurrence was belonging to accused No.1-

Kamlakar. The prosecution, thus, placed reliance on their guesswork. The prosecution tends to believe that the key-chain that was found on the spot could be

belonging to accused No.1-Kamlakar. The Investigating

Officer, could not collect sufficient circumstances to form a chain to connect the accused with homicidal death

of Vithal. We are, therefore, allowing the appeals. Hence, following order is passed :-

i. All the Criminal Appeals are allowed.

ii. The judgment and order passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.123 of 2011 on 25.02.2013 is quashed and set aside.

iii. The appellants/original accused are acquitted

for the offences with which they were charged.

iv. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are in custody. They be released from custody, if not required in any other case.

                                          (8)                           crap99.13




                                                                       
    v.              Accused No.3 is on bail.   Her bail bond stands 




                                               
    cancelled.


    vi.             Fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to 




                                              
    the appellants/original accused.




                                        
           [INDIRA K. JAIN,J.]
                                    ig         [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]
                                  
    snk/2016/MAR16/crap99.13
        
     







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter