Prakash Suryakant Chapekar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 4003 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1998 OF 2022
                             IN APPEAL/482/2020


                           PRAKASH SURYAKANT CHAPEKAR
                                        VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                           ...
        Mr. N.S. Ghanekar and Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocates for applicant
                           Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for respondent
                                           ...

                                    CORAM :      SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                                 Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
                                    RESERVED ON :              29th MARCH, 2023
                                    PRONOUNCED ON :            21st APRIL, 2023


ORDER :

1 Present application has been filed for suspension of substantive

sentence imposed on the applicant - original accused No.1 by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.89/2016 dated

14.08.2020, thereby convicting and sentencing him thus -

1 Accused No.1 Prakash Suryakant Chapekar, resident of Pune is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235(2) of the

2 Cri.Appln_1998_2022

Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

2 Accused No.1 Prakash Suryakant Chapekar, resident of Pune is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

5 The substantive sentence shall run concurrently vide Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.S. Ghanekar for the applicant and

learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for the respondent. With the able assistance of

both of them we have gone through the voluminous record.

3 It will not be out of place to mention here that the coordinate

Bench while dealing with the bail application filed by co-accused Nos.2 and 3

has passed detailed order on 13.01.2021. The application for suspension of

sentence filed by co-accused No.3 Pratibha was allowed, however, application

by co-accused No.2 Datta was rejected. It is to be noted that accused Nos.1

and 3 are husband and wife and they filed Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2020

together, whereas accused No.2 is brother of accused No.3 and he filed

3 Cri.Appln_1998_2022

Criminal Appeal No.480 of 2020. At that time the present appellant had not

preferred any application for suspension of sentence and for bail. Now, he

has filed it. But the coordinate Bench has scanned the evidence from the

point of view, as to whether there is material on record against the accused

persons. While rejecting the bail and suspension of sentence application of

accused No.2 Datta it was held that there is evidence on record. We would

like to import some of the paragraphs from the earlier order passed by the

coordinate Bench on 13.01.2021.

4 PW 1 (Arun Keshav Pimpale) age about 65 years and an

agriculturist from village Wagholi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad noticed at about

7.00 a.m. on 21.12.2015, while inspecting water level in his well, that a

gunny bag was floating on the water. He went to the village and disclosed

about the gunny bag to Ramesh Bhimrao Magar and Nabi Tamboli. These

persons along with other villagers went to the well and found that the legs of

the body were protruded from the gunny bag from one side and long hairs of

the body were hanging out from the other side. They noticed that it was the

dead body of an unknown lady. PW 1 informed the police. On his report

Exh.55, the Station House Officer, Osmanabad Rural Police Station registered

Crime No.174/2015 under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                          4                               Cri.Appln_1998_2022



5              It is undisputed that the investigation was initiated by the first

investigator Shri. B.S. Gavade, Police Inspector. Since the case appears to be

complex, the investigation in the crime was handed over to the Assistant

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tuljapur Shri. Raj Tilak Roshan on

21.05.2016 as he was holding additional charge of Osmanabad city. The

entire course of investigation has been narrated by the Trial Court in the

impugned judgment.

6 The record shows that while the investigation was going on the

clothes on the person of deceased Kanchan were identified as Jaipuri kurti,

Salwar and other apparels. The said kurti has thereafter led to the

communication between flipkart, Amazon and E-commerce web sites and

after comparing the data and the tower location that was supplied by flipkart,

it was found that the mobile number was that of accused No.1 and the tower

location was Wagholi. The things further got clarified that the purchase of

that kurti was from flipkart by accused No.1 and the link was established that

that kurti was gifted by accused No.1 to the deceased Kanchan. Accused

No.1 was then taken into custody and interrogated. After the revealing of the

name of the deceased she was identified by her parents, DNA test was also

conducted which was confirmed and then it was revealed that there was

illicit relations between accused No.1 and deceased, which had then led to

5 Cri.Appln_1998_2022

the domestic quarrels. Accused No.2 Datta is resident of Wagholi and there

were phone calls between all the three accused persons around death of

Kanchan. The car from which the dead body was taken and dumped in

Osmanabad district was then sold by accused No.1. Evidence to that effect

has also been produced and the purchaser has told that he had found blood

stains in the car and had got the explanation from the owner. 33 witnesses

have been examined by the prosecution and none of them turned hostile.

This has led to the learned Trial Judge to hold that circumstances have been

proved as chain leading to the conviction of the accused persons.

7 It was harped upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant

that since the case is based on circumstantial evidence he tried to show the

alleged loopholes in the same, especially in respect of Section 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code. The fact still remains is that there appears to be the

evidence that there was illicit relations between present applicant and the

deceased. Present applicant was already married. Therefore, the connection

has been then tried to be established, which a competent Court after

assessing the evidence has come to the conclusion that it is beyond

reasonable doubt. The coordinate Bench also made a passing reference that

there was motive for the present applicant to commit the crime. We are also

of the same opinion. As a brutal murder has taken place and prima facie it

6 Cri.Appln_1998_2022

appears that every endeavour was made to screen the offender, this cannot be

taken as a fit case where the sentence should be suspended and accused No.1

should be released on bail. Hence, the application stands rejected.

( Y.G. Khobragade, J. )                    ( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )




agd