Bombay High Court
Sachin Pandusing Pardesi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 August, 2024
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:17818-DB
1-APPLN-1318-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1318 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 304 OF 2023
Sachin Pandusing Pardeshi ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. A.D. Ostwal, Advocate i/b Mr. K.D. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ
DATE : 12th AUGUST, 2024
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for suspension of substantive sentence of
imprisonment imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambad in Sessions Case
No. 227 of 2021 vide judgment and order dated 01 st March, 2023 thereby
convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant and the deceased
were working in a bakery situated at Tirthpuri. Fifteen days before the
incident, there was a quarrel between the applicant and the deceased, due to
which the deceased left the job and went to his home. At the instance of
1-APPLN-1318-24.odt
owner of the bakery, the deceased returned back to his job. In the night of
22nd February, 2021, when the applicant and the deceased were sleeping in
the bakery, the applicant went to the nearby house of P.W.6 - Sandip Mapare
and informed him that thieves had come. When Sandip Mapare went to the
bakery, he saw the deceased was lying in injured condition. The matter was
reported to police. The applicant came to be arrested and after investigation
he came to be charged with.
3. In the trial, the prosecution examined relevant witnesses. Learned
trial Court convicted the applicant on the ground that he failed to explain the
circumstances as to how death of the deceased occurred as envisaged under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
evidence on record show that the applicant had immediately rushed to the
house of nearby resident i.e. P.W.6 - Sandip Mapare and informed him that
thieves have come to the bakery. He submits that the applicant did not flee
away. He submitted that merely on suspicion the applicant has been
implicated. He submitted that the applicant has accepted that he was present
in the bakery and the evidence on record went to show that defence of the
applicant was probable. He submits that the C.A. reports do not show blood
on the applicant's clothes. The result of analysis of blood group of deceased
1-APPLN-1318-24.odt
was inconclusive. The applicant was behind the bars for more than three
years. He submits that there are no criminal antecedents and the application
be allowed.
5. The application is vehemently opposed by learned A.P.P. He
submits that the evidence on record show that the applicant and the deceased
were sleeping in the bakery, where they were working. He submits that
defence taken by the applicant is not at all probable. The evidence on record
establishes that the applicant was the author of the crime and application be
rejected.
6. Admittedly, the prosecutions' case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The law in respect of circumstantial evidence is well settled by
catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from the decision in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116,
wherein following principles are laid down :-
"(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty.
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and
1-APPLN-1318-24.odt
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
7. It is true that the evidence on record show that fifteen days prior
to the incident, there was quarrel between the deceased and the applicant
and the deceased left the job and returned home. At the instance of bakery
owner, he resumed the job. Evidence of P.W.6 - Sandip show that in the
night before the incident, he himself, the deceased and the applicant took
meal and thereafter he went to his home, near the bakery. His evidence
further show that in the night of 22nd February, 2021 the applicant came to
his house and banged his door telling that thieves had come. Evidence of this
witness show that the said place of incident i.e. bakery was situated in the
portion of his land. Further the evidence P.W.5 - Digambar show that he was
one of the employee of the said bakery and on the earlier occasion attempt of
theft had taken place in the said bakery. His further evidence show that there
was no axe in the bakery before the incident. Evidence of owner of the
bakery show the applicant was honest person. The C.A. reports do not
indicate blood of deceased on the clothes of the applicant. Evidence on
record show that the applicant had also suffered injuries and the prosecution
has not proved the injury certificate of the applicant. The evidence available
on record, in our prima facie view, show that the applicant's defence cannot
1-APPLN-1318-24.odt
be lightly brush aside. There is no possibility that the appeal would be heard
in near future.
8. In view of above, the execution of substantive sentence of
imprisonment to stand suspended pending the appeal. The applicant be
released on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount.
9. Criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
