Bombay High Court

Angad Samsherbahadur Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 June, 2025

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

2025:BHC-AS:24496-DB


                                                 :1:                         904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1630 OF 2019

            Angad Samsherbahadur Singh                              .....Appellant
                         Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                .....Respondent
                                                .....
                                               WITH
                            INTERIM APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2025
                                                 IN
                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1630 OF 2019
                                                .....
                                               WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO.892 OF 2025
                                                 IN
                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1630 OF 2019
                                                .....
                                               WITH
                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1457 OF 2025
                                                 IN
                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1630 OF 2019
                                                -----
            Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, Advocate a/w. Vaidehi Pradeep for the Appellant.
            Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                -----

                                                CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
                                                DATE : 13th JUNE, 2025

            ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]

1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order

dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar

in Sessions Case No.69/2013. The Appellant was convicted for

commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he

was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 1 of 16

Deshmane(PS)

:2: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six

months. The Appellant was acquitted from the charges of

commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 read with

25(1-B) of the Arms Act. The Appellant was given benefit of set-off

under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, learned counsel for

the Appellant and Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, learned APP for the

Respondent-State.

3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Kapildev and

the Appellant were knowing each other. They were residing at

Boisar. The Appellant had given some financial help to Kapildev.

He was refusing to return the money. Therefore, the Appellant

committed his murder. PW-4 Mohan Gupta and Ravinder Pal had

gone to the room occupied by the Appellant on 16.6.2013 at about

3.25 p.m.. They saw that the Appellant was cutting the throat of

Kapildev. They got scared. The Appellant threatened them. He

told them to bring a gunny bag to dispose of the body. Taking

advantage of his command, they left the place. They went outside

the room and latched it from outside. They rushed to the police

station. They gave information to the police. The police officers 2 of 16

:3: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

accompanied them to the room. They tried to open the door. It

was also latched from inside. The police asked the Appellant, who

was inside, to open the room. He opened the room. The police

went inside the room and found that the deceased was beheaded.

The head of the dead body was near the bathroom. There was a

pool of blood. The Appellant was taken into custody. One of the

police officers lodged his FIR vide C.R. No.I-88/2013 at Boisar

police station. The Appellant was formally put under arrest at

about 9.00 p.m.. At his instance, the knife was recovered from the

same room. On the next day, at his instance, his underwear was

recovered from the same room. The body was sent for postmortem

examination. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.

The statements of the witnesses were recorded and ultimately the

charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of

Sessions.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten

witnesses. The most important witness in this case was the eye

witness PW-4 Mohan Gupta. The other important witnesses were

police officers who had gone to that room and had arrested the

Appellant. The prosecution also examined the panchas who were 3 of 16

:4: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

present during the recovery panchnama and spot panchnama. The

medical evidence was in the form of PW-9, who had conducted the

postmortem examination. The defence of the Appellant was of total

denial. The learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of the eye

witness and those of the police officers. Though he did not find the

recovery evidence to be reliable, based on the direct evidence and

the evidence of the police officers the Appellant was convicted and

sentenced.

5. PW-4 Mohan Gupta is an important witness in this case.

He has deposed that he and his friend Ravinder Pal knew the

Appellant and the deceased Kapildev, who was residing in Monica

Galli. Kapildev was a Contractor and the Appellant was working

with him. On 16.6.2013, he and Ravinder Pal went to the

Appellant's room. The door of the room was latched from inside.

They looked inside from a window. They saw that the Appellant

had sat on Kapildev's chest. The Appellant opened the door. PW-4

and Ravinder Pal went inside. The Appellant was wearing a half

pant. The Appellant started cutting Kapildev's neck with the help

of hacksaw blade. PW-4 and Ravinder Pal pleaded with him not to

do so. At that time, the Appellant threatened them that he would 4 of 16

:5: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

kill them instead of Kapildev. They got scared. The Appellant told

them to bring a gunny bag. He asked whether they had any money.

Ravinder Pal told the Appellant that he had Rs.50/-. He, therefore,

asked them to get a gunny bag. Taking advantage, PW-4 and

Ravinder Pal came out of the room. They closed the door of the

room and latched it from outside. Thereafter, they rushed to Boisar

police station and informed the incident to the police. Two police

persons boarded an auto-rickshaw. PW-4 and Ravinder Pal also sat

in the same rickshaw. On the way, they picked up one Traffic Head

Constable and all of them went to the Appellant's room. The police

asked the Appellant to open the room. The Appellant opened the

room. The police apprehended the Appellant. PW-4 and others saw

that the deceased's neck was completely cut and the beheaded

body was lying under a cot and the head was lying in the

bathroom. After that the Police recorded their statements. The

police also got their statements recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C.

In the cross-examination, he stated that he was residing

in Boisar since about 5 to 6 months before the incident. He knew

the deceased Kapildev. He denied the suggestion that Kapildev was 5 of 16

:6: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

his relative. He accepted that there was no dispute between the

Appellant and Kapildev prior to that incident. He went to the

police station at about 2.45 p.m.. He denied the suggestion that at

the time of incident he was at his house. He denied the suggestion

that the deceased was murdered by some unknown person and the

Appellant was falsely implicated.

6. PW-1 Bapu Pawar was attached to Boisar police station

as a Police Naik. He deposed that on 16.6.2013, two boys came

running towards the Beat Chowky at about 3.25 p.m.. They were

under fear. One of them told the police that the Appellant had

committed murder of the deceased at Avadhnagar with the help of

a knife. They asked to police to accompany them. One of the boys

was PW-4 Mohan Gupta and another was Ravinder Pal. PW-1 then

went to the spot in a rickshaw with those two boys and other police

personnel Sachin Marde. On the way, they picked up Head

Constable Gurav, who was on the traffic duty. All of them went to

the Appellant's room. It was latched from inside. The boys had

latched the door from outside as well. The police unlatched the

door from outside and asked the Appellant to open the door from

inside. He accordingly opened the door. The police entered the 6 of 16

:7: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

room. They saw a pool of blood from a body without head under

the iron cot. The head was lying near the bathroom. The Appellant

was saying that since the deceased had not paid his money for the

work which he had done, therefore, he had cut his head.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that they did not

prepare the panchnama when they apprehended the Appellant.

Apart from that merely suggestions were given to this witness.

7. PW-2 Police Naik Sachin Marde had given evidence on

the similar lines as that of PW-1 Bapu Pawar. In addition, he has

deposed that they took the Appellant to Boisar Police Station and

PW-2 then lodged the FIR against the Appellant. The FIR is

produced on record at Exhibit-18, which substantially corroborates

the evidence of PW-2 and PW-1. After registration of the FIR, PW-2

went to the spot of incident along with the investigating officer

Vishwas Patil.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that when they

received the information at the station beat, they did not inform

the police station about the incident. There were residential houses

near the spot of the incident. He did not know the relatives of the

deceased, who were residing in Boisor. The relatives of the 7 of 16

:8: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

deceased or his neighbours did not tell him to lodge the FIR but

they went to lodge the FIR on their own.

8. PW-6 ASI Krushnakant Gurav was on the Traffic Duty

at that point of time. He was a Head Constable. He accompanied

the other two police officers when they went to the spot. He

described the incident in the very same manner as is described by

PW-1 and PW-2.

9. PW-3 Kamaluddin Shaikh was a pancha of the spot

panchnama, which was conducted between 11.30 p.m. to 12.30

a.m. i.e in the midnight between 16th and 17th June, 2013. The

blood stained earth and part of the cement block was seized for

sending it to the FSL. The spot panchnama is produced on record at

Exhibit-21.

10. PW-5 Nagina Chauhan was a pancha for recovery of the

Appellant's underwear on 17.6.2013 at his instance.

11. PW-7 Raju Chauhan was a pancha for recovery of knife

from the same room, which was effected at 9.15 p.m. on

16.6.2013. The recovery panchnama is produced on record at

Exhibit-29. It was conducted between 9.15 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on

16.6.2013. Thus, this recovery panchnama was conducted before 8 of 16

:9: 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

the spot panchnama was conducted. PW-7 deposed that the

Appellant showed readiness to show the place where he had

concealed the knife. His statement was recorded and then he led

the police to his own room. A knife was seized from that room,

which was hidden under a bag kept on a wooden plank.

The cross-examination of this pancha witness shows

that he was a habitual pancha of Boisar police station and he was

giving his Scorpio jeep to the police station since last 14 to 15

years. Thus, he was under the thumb of police and, therefore, the

learned Judge has rightly chosen not to rely on his evidence. In

our opinion, the approach of the learned Judge was correct and

PW-7 cannot be termed as a reliable witness.

12. PW-8 Mainuddin Khan was the landlord. The room in

question was originally given on rent to one Shamsher Singh and

Jamadar Singh. Shamsher Singh had returned to his village and did

not come back. Therefore Jamadar Singh was residing with the

Appellant in that room where the incident had taken place. He

admitted that he had not rented that room to the Appellant.

13. PW-9 Dr. Manoj Shinde had conducted the postmortem

examination. He deposed the following injuries:

9 of 16

: 10 : 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

"3] Following are the surface wounds and injuries :

i] Complete transverse cut injury on neck and decapitation of heard from rest of the body; ii] There was fracture to the sternum with fracture ribs both sides of chest on palpation.

The injuries mentioned in Serial Nos.17 and 18 of postmortem report are ante-mortem injuries.

4] On internal examination of the body, following injuries were found :

i] Fracture of sternum with 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs of both sides with medestinal soft tissue a haematoma; ii] Complete transverse section of laynx with blood in mucosal layer with transaction of greater vessels of neck;

iii] Right lung and left lung were intact; iv] Heart chambers empty and intact; v] Cervical spine completely transversely cut;"

He opined that the cause of death was decapitation of

head (beheaded) with sharp edged weapon. He also opined that it

was possible to cut the head by the knife which was recovered at

the instance of the Appellant.

14. PW-10 Ramdas Tomar was a pancha in whose presence

the clothes of the deceased were seized.

15. PW-11 Ms. Anandi Dalvi had carried the articles to FSL

on 21.6.2013.

16. PW-12 API Vishwas Patil was the investigating officer.

He deposed that on 16.6.2013 when he was on duty, he received 10 of 16

: 11 : 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

a phone call from Police Constable Marde informing him about the

murder. PW-12 then went to the spot. He along with other two

police officers brought the Appellant to the police station. Two boys

i.e. PW-4 Mohan Gupta and Ravinder Pal told them about the

incident. The inquest panchnama was conducted under his

supervision. The knife was recovered at the instance of the

Appellant. The underwear worn by the Appellant at the time of the

incident was seized at his instance. The articles were sent by this

witness for C.A. examination. After concluding the investigation,

this witness had filed the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he

was asked questions about the entries made in the station diary. He

admitted that when the Appellant was actually apprehended, at

that exact point arrest panchnama was not prepared in the room

and at that time panchanama of the situation of the person of the

accused was also not prepared . Rest of the cross examination was

in the form of suggestions of false implication, which he denied. He

denied that the pancha for recovery of knife was under their

control. He produced the C.A. reports on record. The C.A. reports

show that human blood was found on the clothes of the deceased,

underwear of the Appellant and the knife, but, the blood grouping 11 of 16

: 12 : 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

was inconclusive. As mentioned earlier, the recovery of knife is not

believable and, therefore, these C.A. reports do not take the

prosecution case any further. The prosecution case will have to be

tested on the basis of rest of the evidence.

17. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there

are too many lacunas in the prosecution case. The police have not

brought forth the proper story. The Appellant was allegedly taken

in custody in the afternoon from the room but his arrest was shown

at 9:00 p.m.. Therefore, it appears that the police were not aware

as to who had committed murder and the Appellant was falsely

implicated by arresting him subsequently. The inquest panchnama

does not make any reference to the Appellant having anything to

do with the murder. It was the first step in investigation after

registration of the FIR. The FIR was registered at 4:30 p.m. on

16.1.2013. He submitted that the prosecution has not examined

Ravinder Pal. Therefore, adverse inference be drawn against the

prosecution case. He submitted that the prosecution were required

to produce the best evidence before the court. In absence of the

best evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 12 of 16

: 13 : 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

case of Tomaso Bruno and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1.

18. The learned counsel further submitted that there is

discrepancy in the timings mentioned by the pancha who was

subsequently present at the spot when the spot panchnama was

conducted. It is deposed that the police had called him at the spot

at 5.00 to 5:30 p.m. however the spot panchnama was actually

conducted at 11:00 p.m..

19. Learned APP submitted that the conduct of PW-4

Mohan Gupta and his friend Ravinder Pal was natural. They were

young boys, aged 17 years and 15 years. They were not expected to

do anything than to rush to the police on seeing this incident. She

submitted that arrest of the Appellant was effected in the night but

he was taken from the spot at around 4:00 p.m.. After he was

apprehended, the police were busy in lodging their FIR, conducting

inquest panchnama and sending the dead body for postmortem

examination. Only thereafter the other panchnamas, including spot

panchnama, recovery panchnama and arrest panchnama were

effected. That will not affect the prosecution case. There are

injuries on the chest as is reflected from the postmortem

1 (2015) 7 SCC 178 13 of 16

: 14 : 904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

examination which is in consonance with the evidence of PW-4 that

the Appellant was sitting on the chest of the deceased which could

have caused those injuries.

20. We have considered these submissions. As mentioned

earlier, the evidence of recovery of knife being doubtful need not be

relied on for decision of this case. The most important and crucial

evidence in this case is that of PW-4. We have carefully perused his

evidence and we find no reason to disbelieve him. His conduct was

absolutely natural. He and his friend Ravinder Pal went to the room

of the Appellant when they saw the ghastly incident of the

Appellant cutting head of the deceased. He immediately threatened

both of them. He wanted to dispose of the dead body and therefore

he sent them to bring a gunny bag. Taking due advantage of this,

they could rush out of the room. Thereafter they immediately

rushed to the Beat Chowky and informed about the incident. Then

police officers went to the spot and started investigation. This

conduct on the part of PW-4 and his friend Ravinder Pal was

natural. They are also natural witnesses as they knew the Appellant

and they also knew the deceased. They had actually seen the

Appellant cutting the head of the deceased with a hacksaw-blade.

                                                                         14 of 16





                                      : 15 :                904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

21. PW-4's evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-

1, PW-2 and PW-6, were the police officers who had accompanied

PW-4 and Ravinder Pal to the room of the deceased. When they

reached the spot, the Appellant was still inside the room. He

opened the door. The police officers found a beheaded dead body

under the cot lying near the bathroom.

22. The prosecution has sufficiently established that the

Appellant was present inside the room which was latched from

inside and the dead body lying inside the room. No explanation is

offered in any manner about the defense in that behalf. The

evidence of the three police officers read together with the

evidence of PW-4 makes a seriously incriminating case against the

Appellant. This direct evidence of PW4 supported by the evidence

of police officers, is further corroborated by the Medical Officer

PW-9 Dr. Shinde. The postmortem injuries are in consonance with

the description given by PW-4. There was absolutely no reason as

to why PW-4 could have deposed against the Appellant. The blood

grouping of the flood found on the articles was inconclusive.

Therefore, even leaving aside that corroborative piece of evidence,

the other evidence is sufficiently proved by the prosecution.

                                                                           15 of 16





                                                                        : 16 :                904-apeal-1630-19-J.odt

23. We do not find force in the submission of learned

counsel for the Appellant that the prosecution has not brought

forward the best evidence as they have not examined Ravinder Pal.

In the present case the prosecution has examined PW-4 Mohan

Gupta whose evidence is on the same lines. Ravinder Pal had

accompanied PW4 Mohan Gupta, and therefore, the story could

have been narrated by either of them.

24. In the present case Mohan Gupta is examined as PW-4

and he has narrated the incident in detail. Therefore, it was not

required for the prosecution as an absolute necessity to have

examined Ravinder Pal. As a result, we are satisfied that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We see