Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Appa @ Prakash Baban Gavali And Anr on 8 June, 2021
Bench: S.S. Jadhav, N. R. Borkar
apeal.1000.12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2012
The State of Maharashtra } Appellant
Versus
1. Appa @ Prakash Baban Gavali }
Age: 24 years, Occu: Nil }
R/a. Nira Niwas, Gaonthan Lonavala }
Taluka: Maval, District-Pune. }
}
2. Amit Appa @ Prakash Gavali }
Age: 24 years, Occu.: Nil, }
R/a: Nira Niwas, Gaonthan Lonavala, } Respondents
Taluka: Maval, District-Pune. (Orig. accused nos. 3 and 5)
-------------------
Ms. P.P. Shinde-APP for the State.
Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Ms. Heena Suvarnakar I.by Mr. Shailesh
Chavan for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in Apeal/1000/2012.
---------------------
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 17, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 8, 2021.
JUDGMENT :- (PER SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
1. The state being aggrieved by the acquittal of the present
respondents passed by District Judge-10 and Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune, in Session Case No. 1085 of 2009 dated 27 th of April
2012 has filed the present appeal.
Varsha 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 22:50:27 :::
apeal.1000.12.doc
2. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.6 is the sole eye-
witness to the incident in which the Mayor of Lonavala Municipal
Council namely Bhupendra @ Raju Choudhari was murdered in his
cabin, in broad daylight on 26th May 2009. PW.6 was also injured at the
hands of the accused Sumit Gavali. According to the prosecution in the
preceding year, by virtue of the order of the High Court, Ekvira Chinese
and other establishments owned by Prakash Gavali and Sumit Gavali
were demolished. There was political rivalry. That Gavali family had
suffered heavy economic loss and therefore, they had killed the
deceased in his cabin. As far as motive is concerned, it cannot be said
that the demolition of the establishments of Gavali family could be the
reason of causing his murder as there is sufficient record to show that
there were several criminal cases registered against the deceased. He
was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of
Indian Penal Code and subsequently, acquitted by the High Court.
3. There was political rivalry as well the accused persons had
taken recourse to legal remedies seeking disqualification of the
deceased as a President and in any case, even according to PW.6 on the
day of the incident, the term of Presidentship was about to expire.
Varsha 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 22:50:27 :::
apeal.1000.12.doc
4. The account of the incident as given by the solitary eye-
witness is that the convicted accused i.e. Sumit Gavali and Jafar Shaikh
were the perpetrators of the crime. Motive by itself would not be
sufficient to convict an accused for an offence punishable under section
302 of Indian Penal Code in absence of any material which would
establish the commission of the offence at the hands of the accused
persons. The accused Prakash Gavali and Shashikant Jadhav (accused
no. 3 and accused no.6) had filed legal proceedings and therefore they
were arraigned as accused persons.
5. The testimony of the eye-witness is found unreliable even
to establish the authorship of the injuries at the hands of the accused
Sumit Gavali and Jafar Shaikh. The prosecution has not examined any
witness to even demonstrate that at the time of the incident, the
respondents were in the vicinity of the Lonavala Municipal Council or
anywhere nearby.
6. The respondents were arraigned as accused only because
the family members of the deceased had complained against them as
the political rivals of the deceased and according to PW.18-Shadan
Choudhari, the wife of the deceased, her husband had disclosed to her
Varsha 3 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 22:50:27 :::
apeal.1000.12.doc
that he had threat perception and that she should remember the names
and faces of his political rivals. Moreover, Prakash Gavali happens to be
the father of Amit and Sumit Gavali.
7. The evidence of PW.11 Sagar Gavali, the Rickshaw Driver
15 days prior to the incident, he had seen the respondents in Chinese
Restaurant talking about the deceased. His evidence is not trustworthy
and hence deserve to be discarded. There is no iota of evidence to
establish the involvement of respondents in the murder of the Mayor-
Raju Choudhari.
8. A detailed reasoning is assigned for acquitting the
convicted accused in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2012 and Criminal
Appeal No. 728 of 2012. Hence, for the same reasons appeal being
sans merits deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
(N.R. BORKAR, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
Varsha 4 of 4
