Bombay High Court
Pradeep Manik Kanse vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 October, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
cran2294.20
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
955 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2294 OF 2020
IN APPEAL/653/2020 WITH APPEAL/653/2020
PRADEEP MANIK KANSE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.B. Bhapkar
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. R.V. Dasalkar
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 12th OCTOBER, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. Pending the criminal appeal No. 653 of 2020 preferred
against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 27.10.2020 in Sessions case
No. 279 of 2016 convicting thereby the applicant-accused under
section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for
life and also convicting under section 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, however, no separate sentence is
awarded, the applicant accused has preferred this application for
suspension of substantive part of sentence and also for bail.
2. The prosecution story in brief is as follow:-
The applicant accused fallen in love with deceased Mohini,
however, it was one sided love. Deceased Mohini was below 18
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 00:09:35 :::
cran2294.20
-2-
years of age. The applicant accused was insisting deceased Mohini
to marry him and she was subjected to harassment for the same.
Even the applicant accused given life threats to the family members
of deceased Mohini in the event if the deceased Mohini performs
marriage with any other person. However, the parents of deceased
Mohini settled her marriage elsewhere for which she had consented.
The applicant accused had tried to convince her to marry him,
however deceased Mohini had refused to marry with him. Thus, on
27.5.2016 the applicant accused committeed murder of Mohini by
means of sickle.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
prosecution case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence and
there is no direct evidence in this case. Learned counsel submits that
there is no chain of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances
brought on record are having no definite tendency to point out the
guilt of the accused. Learned counsel submits that P.W.9, 10 and 13
Nanda Arun Ghodke, Ravindra Chaburao Bhambal and Vaishali
Pradip Athare, respectively, have not identified the applicant accused
before the court nor the investigating officer has conducted any
identification parade during the course of investigation. Learned
counsel submits that the evidence of P.W.6, 7 and 8, Husen
Mohisbhai Marchant, Mustafa Samsher Khan and Sahil Chand
Muniyar, respectively, is not trustworthy. Learned counsel submits
that the applicant is in jail since 27.5.2016. He is the only son to his
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 00:09:35 :::
cran2294.20
-3-
old parents. The applicant is young person having no antecedents.
The applicant may be released on bail.
4. Learned A.P.P. submits that though there is no direct
evidence in this case, however, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the chain of circumstantial evidence against the
applicant. The trial court has summarized the same in para 17 of the
judgment. The prosecution has proved that deceased Mohini met
with homicidal death on 27.5.2016 on the terrace at about 11.30 a.m.
As per the post mortem report, there are 17 external injuries and out
of those injuries, most of them are incised wounds. In the opinion of
the doctor, who has conducted post mortem examination, the cause
of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. The
applicant accused himself went to the police station with a blood
stained sickle and blood stained clothes on his person. The
muddemal article sickle and muddemal blood stained clothes on the
person of applicant accused came to be seized under panchnama
and C.A. report is also positive to the extent indicating human blood
on it. Learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant accused has
committed murder of deceased Mohini in a broad day light. The
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
application is liable to be rejected.
5. Though we find that the prosecution case entirely rests upon
circumstantial evidence, however, considering homicidal death and
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 00:09:35 :::
cran2294.20
-4-
multiple external injuries in the form of incised wounds on the person
of deceased Mohini and further the applicant accused himself went to
concerned police station alongwith blood stained sickle and clothes,
we are not inclined to release the applicant accused on bail. There is
enough evidence about the motive. The circumstances brought on
record are having definite tendency to point out the guilt of the
accused. There is evidence that the applicant accused has
purchased the sickle and got it sharpened soon before the incident.
There is detection of blood of deceased Mohini on sickle produced by
the applicant accused in the police station. In view of the same, we
are proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
6. Since the applicant accused is in jail since 2016, as pointed
out by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is at liberty to
file an application in the month of January, 2022, for expeditious
hearing of appeal.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
