Ashok S/O Gulabrao Uikey vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Hinganghat ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8312 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ashok S/O Gulabrao Uikey vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Hinganghat ... on 9 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:13860-DB




              Judgment

                                                             511 apeal459.19

                                           1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.459 OF 2019

              1. Ashok s/o Gulabrao Uikey,
              aged about 53 years, occupation:cultivator.

              2. Vijay @ Sardar s/o Gulabrao Uikey,
              aged about 43 years, occupation: labourer.

              Both r/o Inzala, tahsil Hinganghat,
              district Wardha.                    ..... Appellants.
                                    :: V E R S U S ::
              The State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Police Station Hinganghat,
              district Wardha.              ..... Respondents.

              Shri R.M.Daga, Counsel for the Appellants.
              Mrs.Swati Kolhe, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
              Respondent/State.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.
              CLOSED ON : 20/11/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 09/12/2025

              JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

1. By this appeal, the appellants (the accused

persons) have challenged judgment and order dated

28.3.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

.....2/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

Hinganghat, district Wardha (learned Judge of the trial

court) in Sessions Case No.25/2017.

2. By the said judgment impugned in this appeal,

appellant No.1 is convicted for offence punishable under

Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment and pay fine Rs.5000/-, in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for

offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of the

IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

years and pay fine Rs.1000/- by each of them, in default,

to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month by each of

them.

Learned Judge of the trial court directed that all

the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

.....3/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant

No.1 Ashok s/o Gulabrao Uikey was reported to be dead on

9.11.2025 and, therefore, the appeal against him stood

abated.

4. Factual matrix of the prosecution case, in a

nutshell, is as under:

5. Accused No.1 and accused No.2 are real brothers

and Kalpana (the deceased) was first wife of accused No.1.

Sonali (the complainant) and Archana are daughters of the

deceased and accused No.1. On 5.10.2013, at about 8:30

am, accused No.1 approached the Hinganghat Police

Station, district Wardha and was talking irrelevant. As per

his statement, "he killed his wife." After some time, the

complainant and her sister Archana also came to the police

station. The complainant informed that she received a

phone call from her father disclosing that, "he has killed her

.....4/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

mother and buried in house at village Inzala." API Vanmala

Pardhi, immediately issued letter to the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Hinganghat for conducting proceeding on the

spot of the incident and proceeded towards the spot of the

incident at Inzala along with daughters of the deceased.

Tahsildar G.T.Purake reached the spot of the incident and

opened doors of the house of accused No.1 and went

inside. In second room of the house, which is kitchen in

Northern Corner, wooden planks were kept and other

portion of kitchen was covered with cement concrete. On a

portion below wooden planks, there was a dug looking like

pit. The planks were removed and with the help of

villagers, a pit was dug by "spade" and a dead body of a

lady was found. The said dead body was identified by the

complainant. Accordingly, spot and inquest panchanamas

were also prepared. During the inquest panchanama,

strangulation marks were seen on throat and also an injury

.....5/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

on stomach. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report

against accused No.1.

6. After lodging of the report, during investigation,

it was revealed to the investigating officer that accused

No.2 assisted accused No.1 in commission of the offence

and, therefore, he arrested accused No.2. Incriminating

articles i.e. clothes of the accused are seized. At the

instance of the accused persons, weapons used in the

commission of the crime were recovered on the basis of

memorandum statement. After completion of the

investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the

accused persons.

7. As the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the

case was committed to the Sessions Court. Learned

Sessions Judge framed charge vide Exh.24. The contents of

.....6/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

the charge are read over and explained to the accused

persons to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

8. In support of the prosecution case, the

prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses, they are as

follows:

     PW                Names of Witnesses                     Exh.
     Nos.                                                     Nos.

deceased and accused No.1, complainant

deceased and accused No.1

.....7/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

statement and recovery panchanama, and

9. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed

reliance on report Exh.43, map Exh.47, spot panchanama

Exh.38, inquest panchanama Exh.59, postmortem notes

Exh.71, requisition Exh.72, query report Exh.73, FIR

Exh.99, seizure memos Exhs.100, 101, 103, 105, and 107,

memorandum statement of accused No.2 Exh.111, recovery

panchanama Exh.113, seizure memo Exh.114, letter to CA

Exh.120, and CA Reports Exhs.124 to 128.

10. After appreciating the evidence, learned Judge of

the trial court held accused No.1 guilty for offence

punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and

both the accused persons were held guilty for offence

.....8/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of the IPC and

sentenced them as the aforesaid.

11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same,

the accused persons preferred the present appeal.

12. During pendency of the appeal, accused No.1

Ashok s/o Gulabrao Uikey was reported to be dead and,

therefore, the appeal is abated against him.

13. Heard learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga for the

accused persons and learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Mrs.Swati Kolhe for the State. With their able assistance,

we have gone through the entire material on record.

14. Learned counsel for the accused persons

submitted that as far as accused No.2 is concerned, only

allegation levelled against him is that, he has assisted

accused No.1 in burying the dead body of the deceased in

the house and thereby as per contentions of the

.....9/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

prosecution, he committed the offence punishable under

Section 201 of the IPC. He submitted that accused No.2

has already undergone the said sentence imposed upon

him.

The communication issued by the

Superintendent, District Prison, Wardha, placed on record

by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, shows

that accused No.2 has already undergone the said sentence

and he is released from the jail on 27.7.2024.

He further submitted that as far as merits of the

matter is concerned, foundational fact, that accused No.2

was residing along with accused No.1, itself is not

established by the prosecution.

Though the prosecution has adduced evidence of

informant PW2 Sonali Maraskolhe, who is daughter of the

deceased and accused No.1, her evidence shows that

.....10/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

accused No.1 was residing along with his second wife

Kalyani. Her evidence nowhere shows that, at any point of

time, both the accused persons were residing together at

Inzala along with the deceased.

He has invited our attention to the cross

examination of the said witness, which shows that there

was no door to backside of house of the deceased. He

submitted that, therefore, possibility of any other intruder

into the house and committing the offence cannot be ruled

out.

He submitted that as far as accused No.2 is

concerned that he has assisted accused No.1 to screen him

from the legal punishment, which is required, itself is not

established. Except the vague evidence of the investigating

officer, that accused No.2 has assisted accused No.1 to bury

dead body of the deceased in the house, there is absolutely

.....11/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

no evidence and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be

allowed.

15. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State supported the judgment impugned in the

appeal and submitted that as far as merits of the matter is

concerned, the prosecution has examined Police Patil PW6

Vinayak Mute.

The evidence of daughter of the deceased and

accused No.1 PW8 Archana Dhurve discloses that accused

No.2 was residing along with accused No.1. The dead

body was found inside the house in a buried condition.

The evidence of Police Patil PW6 Vinayak Mute

and daughter of the deceased and accused No.1 PW8

Archana Dhurve shows that the accused persons were

residing together along with the deceased, which

sufficiently shows involvement of accused No.2 in burying

.....12/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

the dead body of the deceased and, therefore, the offence

is made out against accused No.2 and, therefore, no

interference is called for in the judgment impugned in the

appeal.

16. After hearing both the sides and perusing the

evidence adduced, as far as accused No.1 is concerned, he

was charged for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

17. Regarding homicidal death of the deceased, the

evidence of Medical Officer PW9 Dr.Ashish Lande is

material. As per his evidence, death body of the deceased

was referred to him for conducting postmortem along with

requisition Exh.61 and the inquest report is at Exh.59. The

dead body of the deceased was identified by daughter of

the deceased and accused No.1 PW8 Archana Dhurve and

Yogesh Uikey. During external examination, he found

following injuries on the body of the deceased:

.....13/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

"1) Circular strangulation/ligature mark which was circular angle continuous abraded groove around neck with gap of posterior aspect of neck of length 17 cm x 1.5 cm. This was placed 3 cm below right angle of mandible, 6 cm below mentum and 4.5. cm below left angle of mandible".

Upon internal examination, he found

extroversoin of blood in subquestion tissue. There was

fractured of hayride bone and cricoid cartages. The death

of the deceased was due to strangulation. Time of the

death narrated by him is within 6-8 hours of her last meal.

Accordingly, he prepared postmortem report Exh.71. He

has opined, after examination of "stick," that no injury is

consistent with the above mentioned weapon as evident on

the deceased body.

Though the medical officer is cross examined at

length, nothing is brought on record to falsify the cause of

death of the deceased.

.....14/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

Thus, the evidence of the medical officer

sufficiently shows that the death of the deceased is due to

the strangulation.

18. The entire case of the prosecution is rested on

circumstantial evidence.

19. The material evidence, on which the prosecution

placed reliance, is the evidence of informant PW2 Sonali

Maraskolhe and PW8 Archana Dhurve, who are daughters

of the deceased and accused No.1. They both have not

supported the prosecution case and left loyalty towards the

prosecution case.

The evidence of informant PW2 Sonali

Maraskolhe shows that she received a phone call from an

unknown person. Her parents were residing separately.

The unknown person informed her that her mother is lying

behind her house at Inzala and, therefore, she lodged the

.....15/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

report Exh.43. Her cross examination shows that she along

with her sister and brother were maintained by her

grandfather. There was a dispute between her parents.

Her father has performed second marriage. Subsequently,

there was a settlement between her father and mother.

She also admitted that her father took her mother to

Inzala. She has also admitted that after the dead body was

cremated, she made enquiry with her uncle, i.e. accused

No.2, about the incident. Her cross examination on behalf

of the accused shows that there was no door to backside of

the house of her mother. Her mother was found lying

behind her house at a distance of ten feet. She has also

admitted that her father deserted her mother and her

father was residing at Hinganghat since last 10-12 years.

Similarly, another daughter of the deceased and

accused No.1 PW8 Archana Dhurve has also not supported

the prosecution case and her evidence is on the similar line

.....16/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

that her father was residing at Inzala and after her

marriage, her mother also started residing at Inzala.

Whereas, her step-mother Kalyani was residing at

Hinganghat.

During her cross examination, by learned APP, it

was brought on record that she is not aware whether in the

year 2013 her mother Kalpana and the accused persons

were residing together in the house at Inzala. In her

further cross examination, she admitted that there was

compromise between her father and mother and,

thereafter, they started residing together at Inzala and

accused No.2 was also residing along with them.

20. Besides the evidence of these two witnesses,

Police Patil PW6 Vinayak Mute of Inzala, is examined vide

Exh.51, whose evidence shows that he received a phone

call from the police station on 5.10.2013 and, therefore,

.....17/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

when he visited the house of accused No.1, the house was

locked. Thereafter, at 10:00 am, the police and the

Tahsildar came to his house. The Tahsildar opened the lock

of the house of accused No.1. They entered into house and

the dead body was found in the said house. His cross

examination shows that there is no backdoor to the house

of accused No.1. He admitted that he is not aware,

whether, at the time of the incident, accused No.1 was at

Inzala.

21. Thus, as far as the evidence of these witnesses is

concerned, the same does not state sufficiently that

accused No.2 was residing along with accused No.1 and

the deceased in the same house.

22. Besides the oral evidence of these witnesses,

PW1 Narayan Timase is examined by the prosecution, who

acted as a pancha on spot panchanama. However, he has

.....18/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

also not supported the prosecution case and stated that

only his signatures were obtained on the said panchanamas

i.e. spot and inquest. He specifically denied that the spot

panchanama and the inquest panchanama were prepared

in his presence.

23. PW3 Circle Officer Loma Khode, has drawn map

of the incident. His evidence is to the extent that he

prepared the map of the incident Exh.47.

24. PW4 Vijay Shende, also acted as pancha on

seizure of the clothes and blood samples of the deceased,

has also not supported the prosecution case. He is also

pancha on seizure of the blood samples of the accused, but

as observed earlier, he has completely left loyalty towards

the prosecution.

25. PW5 Dilip Kursange, is another pancha, who

also left loyalty towards the prosecution and stated that no

.....19/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

panchanama was prepared in his presence. During the

cross examination, he admitted that he and the accused

persons are residents of the same village. There are good

relations between the accused persons and him. His

further cross examination by the defence counsel shows

that since last 9-10 years, accused No.1 is residing with his

wife at Hinganghat. He also admitted that accused No.1

has taken divorce from the deceased and, therefore, he was

residing with his second wife.

26. PW10 Mohini Kursange, has also acted as

pancha on spot panchanama and the inquest panchanama.

She has also not supported the prosecution and left loyalty

towards the prosecution. Her cross examination shows

that on 5.10.2013, she went to the house of accused No.1.

She has also admitted that there were two rooms in the

house of accused No.1 and she has only to put her

signatures on the said panchanamas.

.....20/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

27. PW12 Raspal Shendre, has acted as pancha on

memorandum statement of the accused persons and as per

the prosecution, on the basis of the memorandum

statement, incriminating articles, i.e. weapons, are

recovered. This witness has also not supported the

prosecution case and he has completely denied the

prosecution case that accused No.2 has given statement

that he is ready to produce "iron-spade" and "scrapper" and

at his instance, these articles were recovered.

28. Thus, considering the above evidence, that none

of panchas has supported the prosecution case, even

informant PW2 Sonali Maraskolhe, PW8 Archana Dhurve,

who are daughters of the deceased and accused No.1, and

PW11 Sunil Dhurve, the son-in-law of the deceased, who

have also not supported the prosecution case, the

prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Tahsildar

PW7 Ganpat Purke whose evidence is only to the extent

.....21/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

that on 5.10.2013, Hinganghat Police Station issued letter

to the Sub Divisional Officer at Hinganghat for preparation

of spot panchanama and inquest panchanama.

Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer at Hinganghat

ordered him to prepare the spot panchanama by visiting

the spot of the incident situated at mouza Inzala. He

issued notices to Dilip Kursange, Narayan Timase, and

Mohini Kursange to act as panchas. The notices are at

Exh.39. The spot of the incident was shown by the police.

The villagers were present. Informant PW2 Sonali

Maraskolhe was also present. The lock of the house was

opened in presence of panchas. The walls of the house was

constructed of bricks and cement and roof was of tin. The

house was having two rooms. On the southern side, in the

said room, one wooden cot was placed. On northern

corner of kitchen, wooden planks were kept and other

portion of the kitchen was floored with cement concrete.

.....22/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

The portion beneath wooden planks was looking like dug

and pit. After removing the planks and utensils, they dug

the place and the dead body was removed from the said

place which was identified by informant PW2 Sonali

Maraskolhe as her mother. Accordingly, he has drawn the

spot panchanama as well as inquest panchanama. The

investigating officer has seized clothes of the deceased.

The strangulation marks were found on the throat.

Accordingly, the spot and inquest panchanamas were

proved through him, which are at Exhs.59 and 60.

During his cross examination, he admitted that

he has not seen documents of ownership of the house.

Except this cross examination, nothing

incriminating is brought on record.

29. As already observed, none of witnesses has

supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the

.....23/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of

investigating officer PW13 Vanmala PardhI, who carried

out the investigation in the said crime. Her evidence states

about investigation carried out by her. As per her evidence,

accused No.1 came in the police station, who was talking

irrelevant, and he was saying that, "he has killed his wife".

After some time, informant PW2 Sonali Maraskolhe along

with her sister came to the police station. The same

information was given by accused No.1 to the informant

also and, therefore, they proceeded towards the spot. She

has issued a letter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The

Tahsildar and panchas were called and the Tahsildar has

drawn the panchanama at the spot of the incident. The

dead body was recovered from the said house. She has

seized simple soil and blood stained soil from the spot. On

the basis of the report lodged by informant PW2 Sonali

Maraskolhe, she has registered the crime. The inquest

.....24/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

panchanama was also prepared. The clothes of the accused

persons as well as clothes of the deceased are seized. The

blood samples of the accused persons are also collected

with the help of the medical officer. Her evidence shows

that on 9.10.2013, accused No.1 disclosed in presence of

panchas that he is ready to produce "stick" and an "iron-

rod of weighing scale". At the instance of accused No.1,

the said "iron-rod" and "stick" were recovered by drawing

panchanama Exh.109. On 10.10.2013, accused No.2 was

enquired in presence of panchas. He has made a statement

that he is ready to produce one "spade" and "pick-axe"

from the dilapidated rooms of house at Inzala. Thereafter,

he led them and in presence of panchas, he has shown the

place and accordingly the said articles were recovered at

the instance of the accused. She has seized the said articles

in presence of panchas. Her evidence further shows that

the said articles are forwarded by her for chemical analysis.

.....25/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

After completion of the investigation, she submitted

chargesheet against the accused persons. During her cross

examination, it came on record that when she reached the

spot, the house of accused No.1 was locked. Her cross

examination further shows that when accused No.1

approached the police station, she asked him to sit and he

was sitting in the police station.

As far as accused No.2 is concerned, her

evidence only shows that during the investigation, it

revealed to her that accused No.2 has assisted accused

No.1 in concealing the dead body of the deceased in the

house.

30. Learned counsel for the accused persons

submitted that as far as accused No.1 is concerned, now,

the appeal is abated against him.

.....26/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

As far as accused No.2 is concerned, except bare

statement, that during the investigation, it revealed that

accused No.2 has assisted accused No.1, there is no

material to connect him with the alleged offence.

It is submitted that in fact, foundational fact,

that accused No.2 was residing along with accused No.1

and the deceased, itself is not proved. On the contrary, the

evidence of the witnesses shows that accused No.1 was

residing along with his second wife at Hinganghat and not

at Inzala.

He submitted that admission given by PW1

Narayan Timase, who acted as a pancha on spot

panchanama, and informant PW2 Sonali Maraskolhe,

shows that there was no door to the house of the deceased

towards backside and, therefore, entering into the house by

any other person cannot be ruled out. He submitted that

.....27/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

in fact, there is no allegation against accused No.2 that he

has caused death of the deceased.

31. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State invited our attention to the memorandum statement

of accused No.2 and recovery at his instance. Admittedly,

panchas have not supported the prosecution case and,

therefore, she placed reliance on the CA Reports Exh.128

and submitted that "pick-axe" and "spade" were recovered

at the instance of accused No.2 and blood stains are found

on the "pick-axe", which are of human blood and no

explanation is put forth for the same. Admittedly, pancha

i.e. PW12 Raspal Shendre has not supported the

prosecution case as far as voluntary statement of accused

No.2 and recovery at his instance are concerned. The

evidence of the investigating officer also not discloses that

accused No.2 has made a voluntary statement and in

.....28/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

pursuance of the said statement, he has led the panchas

and articles are recovered.

32. As far as the evidence as to the recovery is

concerned, the doctrine underlined under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act is founded on the principle that if any

fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any

information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a

guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is

true. The conditions necessary for the applicability of

Section 27 of the Act are that; (1) discovery of fact in

consequence of an information received from accused; (2)

discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) the accused

must be in police custody when he gave information; and

(4) so much of information as relates distinctly to the fact

thereby discovered is admissible. What is admissible is the

information and the same has to be proved and the opinion

form it by the police officer. The exact information given by

.....29/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the

articles has to be proved. The basic idea embedded in

Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of

confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded

on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search

made on the strength of any information obtained from a

prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the

information supplied by the prisoner is true.

33. In the present case, there is no evidence on

record that accused No.2 has made a voluntary statement

and in pursuance of the said statement, recovery was made.

34. Thus, the evidence of the investigating officer,

regarding recovery of the incriminating articles, is also not

proved by the prosecution.

35. The accused No.2 is charged for offence

punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of the IPC.

.....30/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

Section 201 of the IPC deals with causing

disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false

information to scree offender. Having regard to the

language used, following ingredients emerge:

"(i) committal of an offence;

(ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;

(iii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence;

and

(IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment."

36. Thus, intent to screen the offender from legal

punishment is essential. Such intention exists or is

.....31/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

presumed to exist in the mind of the accused when he has

some interest in the person who committed the main

offence. Though identity of a person who committed the

main offence is not established in evidence, there must be

material to indicate that the accused knew who is the main

offender and when the accused did the act of causing

disappearance of evidence or giving false information

regarding the offence. The intention to screen the offender

must be the primary and sole object of the accused. Mere

fact that concealment was rightly to have that effect is not

sufficient. Mere suspicion would also not be sufficient.

There must be available on record cogent evidence that the

accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to

screen another known or unknown. The foremost necessity

is that, the accused must have knowledge or have reason to

believe that such an offence has been committed.

.....32/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

37. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the cases of Palvinder Kour vs. State of Punjab, reported in

AIR 1952 SC 354 and Roshan Lal vs. State of Punjab,

reported in AIR 1965 SC are relevant, which are as follows:

"Section 201 is somewhat clumsily drafted, but we think that the expression "knowing or having reason to believe" in the first paragraph and the expression "knows or believes" in the second paragraph are used in the same sense. Take the case of an accused who has reason to believe that an offence has been committed. If the other conditions of the first paragraph are satisfied, he is guilty of an offence under Sectoin 201. If it be supposed that the word "believes" was used in a sense different from the expression "having reason to believe", it would be necessary for the purpose of inflicting punishment upon the accused to prove that he "believes" in addition to "having reason to believe". We cannot impute to the legislature an intention that an accused who is found guilty of the offence under the first

.....33/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

paragraph would escape punishment under the succeeding paragraphs unless some additional fact or state of mind if proved".

38. In the light of the above interpretation, as regards

Section 201 of the IPC, if facts of the present case are taken

into consideration, except the admission given by PW8

Archana Dhurve, there is absolutely no material to show

that accused No.2 was residing along with accused No.1

and he was present at the relevant time along with accused

No.1. On the contrary, the entire evidence shows that

accused No.1 himself was not residing at Inzala and he was

residing along with his second wife Kalyani at Hinganghat.

Police Patil PW6 Vinayak Mute of village Inzala, has also

not stated that accused No.2 was residing along with

accused No.1. On the contrary, he has admitted during his

cross examination that he is not aware, whether, at the

time of the incident, accused No.1 was at Inzala.

.....34/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

39. Thus, the entire evidence of the prosecution is

not cogent and reliable, as far as involvement of accused

No.2 is concerned.

40. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the

fact that accused No.2 was residing along with accused

No.1 and the deceased at the spot of the incident. None of

witnesses has stated presence of accused No.2 along with

accused No.1 at village Inzala and, therefore, in absence of

any evidence, observation of learned Judge of the trial

court, on the basis of the evidence of investigating officer,

that during the investigation involvement of accused No.2

is revealed, is not sufficient to hold him guilty and,

therefore, the said observation of learned Judge of the trial

court appears to be erroneous without having been there

any evidence to the extent that accused No.2 has assisted

accused No.1 in disappearance of the evidence. The act of

accused No.2 in disappearance of the evidence is itself is

.....35/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

not proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under

Section 201 read with 34 of the IPC against accused No.2.

41. In this view of the matter, the criminal appeal

deserves to be allowed and, therefore, we proceed to pass

following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(2) The judgment and order dated 28.3.2019 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat, district

Wardha in Sessions Case No.25/2017 convicting accused

No.2 - Vijay @ Sardar s/o Gulabrao Uikey for offence

punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of the IPC is

hereby quashed and set aside.

(3) The amount of fine, if any, be returned to accused No.2

on due identification and verification.

.....36/-

Judgment

511 apeal459.19

(3) The R&P be sent back to the trial court.

Appeal stands disposed of.

(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 09/12/2025 17:59:24