Bombay High Court
Mahadev @ Gotya Kisan Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 June, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:26028-DB
Digitally
signed by
WAKLE
WAKLE MANOJ
MANOJ JANARDHAN Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
JANARDHAN Date:
2025.07.01
11:27:19
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.235 OF 2017
Mahadev @ Gotya Kisan Jadhav
A- 22 yrs old. Occupation- Nil,
R/o. Dyneshwar Patil Bldg, Room No.1,
Sector No.5, Sanpade, Navi Mumbai
District- Thane, At present- Kolhapur Jail ...Appellant
(Orig. Accused)
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
At instance of Turbhe Police Station ...Respondent
------
Mr. Prosper D'Souza, (Appointed Advocate) for the Appellant.
Ms. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent-State.
------
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 20th JUNE, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1) The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order
dated 8th January, 2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Thane in Sessions Case No.01 of 2014.
2) The Appellant was the only accused before the Trial Court.
The Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 302 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
fine to suffer R.I. for three months. He was given set-off for the period
he was in custody as an undertrial.
3) Heard learned Appointed Counsel Mr. D'Souza, for the
Appellant and learned APP Ms. Mulekar, for the Respondent-State.
4) The prosecution case is that the Appellant was knowing
the deceased Annu Shetty. In the night between 12 th September 2013
and 13th September 2013, there was a quarrel between the Appellant
and Annu Shetty. Annu had lost money in gambling. He asked money
from the Appellant, who refused. There was a quarrel between them.
It is alleged that Annu abused him and acted in an obscene manner.
The Appellant got angry. Their common friends separated both of
them. After that, the Appellant and his friends went to a liquor bar
and consumed liquor.
5) The Appellant was saying that he would commit the
murder of Annu. In the morning, at around 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., he
assaulted Annu on his head with a paver-block. He gave repeated
blows, causing his death. This incident was witnessed by Avinash
Khillare. The Appellant was shouting that he had committed Annu's
murder. The police were informed. The Appellant was near the spot
where the dead body was lying. He told the police that he had
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
committed the murder. He surrendered himself. He was arrested. The
F.I.R. was lodged. The investigation was conducted. The paver-block
thrown by him in a gutter, was recovered at his instance. His clothes
were seized. The articles were sent for Chemical Analysis. Statements
of witnesses were recorded and at the conclusion of the investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of
Session.
6) During the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.
PW14-Avinash Khillare was an eye-witness. The other witnesses were
common friends. Some of them were examined to establish that the
deceased and the Appellant had a quarrel in the night. Some of the
witnesses had deposed about the threats given by the Appellant in the
night. Other witnesses have deposed about the Appellant's admission
that he had committed the murder. His admission amounted to extra-
judicial confession. The other witnesses are pancha witnesses, the
Medical Officer who had conducted the post-mortem examination and
the police witnesses.
7) The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. The
learned trial Judge observed that the discrepancies in the evidence
was minor. There was a quarrel between the Appellant and the
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
deceased before the incident. There was an eye-witness and there was
evidence of extra-judicial confession. Relying on these aspects, the
learned trial Judge passed his order of conviction and sentence.
8) Avinash Khillare is an eye-witness to the incident. His
evidence is important. He is examined as PW14. He deposed that he
knew the Appellant, whom he referred to as Gotya. On 13 th
September, 2013 he was present in the Mandap of the temple. The
deceased Annu Shetty and one Shailesh Daware were present with
him. Then, they went to a bar and consumed liquor. After that, Annu
Shetty and Shailesh Daware played cards. The Appellant was also
present there. Annu Shetty lost the game and hence the money. He
asked money from the Appellant. The Appellant refused and then
there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased-Annu.
There was altercation between them. Annu Shetty bit the left hand of
the Appellant and caused scratch injuries on his neck. The others who
were present at that spot, separated them. After that, PW14 and the
deceased Annu Shetty went back to the temple. They had their dinner.
The Appellant came there and he started eating food. Again, he
noticed Annu Shetty. Both of them started abusing each other. One
Mangesh Thakur intervened and stopped the quarrel. Mangesh
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
Thakur took some boys along with him. PW14 stayed there with the
deceased. Then the deceased Annu Shetty went to sleep. One Amit
More was sleeping there. PW14 also went to sleep. In the morning at
about 7:45 a.m., when he returned to the pandal, he saw that, the
Appellant was assaulting Annu Shetty with a stone on his head. The
Appellant threatened PW14 by looking threateningly at him. PW14
got scared and went away. At about 9:00 a.m., he again returned to
the spot. He saw that the deceased was already dead. He identified
the paver-block shown to him.
In the cross-examination, PW14 deposed that the deceased
Annu Shetty was addicted to liquor. He was quarreling with many
persons. He had created terror in the area. People were afraid of him.
He accepted that he did not narrate the incident to Mangesh Thakur.
But he volunteered to state that he was in a frightened condition. He
denied the suggestions about his deposition being false.
9) Mangesh Thakur is examined as PW1. He had lodged the
F.I.R. He was residing in front of the temple. He deposed that on 12 th
September, 2013 at around 2:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., the deceased Annu
Shetty, the Appellant and other three to four boys were present in the
pandal. They were quarreling. PW1 asked them to stop and go away.
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
The Appellant complained that Annu Shetty had bitten his finger. PW1
then went to his house. In the morning, the Appellant came shouting
and informed him that there was blood found near the temple. PW1
rushed to the spot. He found Annu Shetty in a pool of blood. The
Appellant was present there. PW1 then went to the police station and
informed the police. The police came to the spot. One Amit Patil had
come to the spot for performing pooja at the temple. He informed
that, there was some murder committed. Amit Patil told him that, the
Appellant was shouting that he had committed Annu Shetty's murder.
The Appellant was present there. He surrendered before the police
and said that he had committed Annu's murder. The police took him
in custody. After that, PW1 lodged the F.I.R. It is produced on record
at Exh.8.
In the cross-examination, he stated that when the
Appellant came to call him, his clothes were not stained with blood.
The F.I.R. at Exh.8 substantially corroborates PW1's evidence.
10) PW3-Gautam Rajaguru was one of their friends. He had
described the incident in that night about Annu's loss while playing
cards and Annu asking the Appellant for money. Then he described the
quarrel and he also described the incident which took place during
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
dinner when the Appellant and the deceased abused each other. After
that, the Appellant took PW3 to a beer bar. Two more friends were
with them. Importantly, PW3 has further deposed that the Appellant
was saying that he would commit Annu's murder. In the morning at
about 8.45 a.m., the Appellant came to his house and told him that he
would kill Annu. PW3 asked him to go away.
In the cross-examination, he has stated that on 13 th
September, 2013 at 8:45 a.m. the Appellant told him that he had
already killed Annu. He deposed that PW14 Avinash Khillare was the
friend of the deceased. PW3 himself was also consuming liquor. When
the deceased and others were playing cards, they had already
consumed liquor. He denied the other suggestions about his
description of the evidence being false.
11) PW5-Maruti Bansode is another common friend of the
deceased and the Appellant who also described the same quarrel
which took place when Annu asked for money from Appellant. He saw
that in the quarrel, the deceased Annu had bit the Appellant's left
hand finger and there were abrasions on the Appellant's neck. They
abused each other. He had further deposed that the deceased abused
the Appellant with reference to the Appellant's sister and also
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
removed his own pant. Then both of them starting beating each other.
PW5 and others separated them. Then all of them left the spot. In the
morning, he came to know that Annu was murdered.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that, everyone was
playing cards without any problem and the deceased Annu Shetty
started the quarrel.
12) PW6-Akshay More is another friend. He has described the
quarrel and exchange of abuses between the Appellant and the
deceased. According to him, PW1 started the quarrel. The Appellant
had taken PW1-Mangesh and this witness for consuming liquor. At
that time, the Appellant told them that Annu could not leave his mind
and that he would commit Annu's murder. At about 6:00 a.m., all of
them returned back to their respective houses. He then came to know
that the Appellant had committed Annu's murder.
There is nothing much in his cross-examination.
13) PW7-Akshay Daware has also deposed on the same point.
He has supported the version of PW5, that Annu had abused the
Appellant in filthy language and had removed his own pant. He has
deposed the incident up to the point of quarrel. He came to know
about the murder on the next day.
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
14) PW9-Amit Patil was proceeding towards the temple at
around 7:00 to 7:30 a.m., on 13 th September, 2013. At that time, he
saw the Appellant running towards the village and he was shouting
that he had murdered Annu. This witness after offering prayers in the
temple, was proceeding towards another temple. On the way, he saw
one boy lying in a pool of blood. He was not wearing any shirt. At that
time, PW1-Mangesh Thakur and police came there. In the meantime
the Appellant came there and surrendered himself before the police.
He was saying that he had committed murder of that boy.
In the cross-examination he deposed that, when he heard
the shouts of the Appellant, he did not rush to Mangesh Thakur to
inform him about the same.
15) PW11-Komal Yadav was the Appellant's aunt. She turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution case but she deposed that
on 13th September, 2013 at about 5:00 p.m., she returned home. At
that time her mother told her that the Appellant had come to their
house in the morning and was telling PW11's mother to set him on
fire.
16) PW4-Rampyare Singh was a pancha for spot panchnama.
The spot panchnama was conducted in his presence. The earth mixed
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
with blood, simple earth and other articles were seized during the spot
panchnama.
17) PW2-Yogesh Shejale was also a pancha for spot
panchnama and spot panchnama is produced on record at Exh.11.
18) PW10-Kajamiya Patel was another pancha. In his presence,
the Appellant was arrested and his clothes were seized. He has
produced that panchnama at Exh.29. It was conducted between 3:20
p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on 13th September, 2013.
19) PW12-Ramji Yadao was a pancha in whose presence the
Appellant showed willingness to produce the paver-block. That
panchnama is produced on record at Exh.32. It was produced from
one pit. According to him, there were blood and hair on the paver-
block. The panchnama shows that the Appellant had got down in the
gutter which was about 4 feet deep and had taken out the paver-
block.
20) PW13-Dr.Bhushan Jain had conducted the post-mortem
examination. The deceased had suffered the following injuries :-
1) Contused lacerated wound over nose, 2 x 1 cms. cartilage
deep, reddish in colour,
2) Contused lacerated wound over left face near Ala of nose,
2 x 1 cms., muscle deep, reddish in colour,
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
3) Linear abrasion over left face situated above injury no.2 of
length 10 cms. reddish in colour,
4) Abraded contusion over left maxillary region, 4 x 3 cms.,
reddish,
5) Contused lacerated wound over left eye-brow laterally, 3 x
1 cms. bone deep, reddish,
6) Contused lacerated wound over left upper eye-lid, 3 x 0.5
cms., skin deep, reddish,
7) Contused lacerated wound over left fore-head laterally, 2 x
1 cms., bone deep, reddish,
8) Contused lacerated wound over left temporo-parietal
region, 7 x 2 cms., bone deep, reddish,
9) Abraded contusion over left external ear upper half,
reddish,
10) Contused lacerated wound over left temporal region,
behind external ear, 2 x 1 cms., bone deep, reddish,
11) Contused lacerated wound over bi-parietal region
posteriorly, 5 x 1 cms., reddish,
12) Two contused lacerated wounds over right parietal region
behind above injury of size 1 x 0.5 cms. each, scalp deep,
reddish,
13) Contused lacerated wound over right occipital region, 4 x
1.5 cms. bone deep, reddish and
14) Contusion over right external ear upper part, 4 x 3 cms.
reddish.
21) On the internal examination, he found that there was
Haemorrhage under the scalp, the skull showed multiple depressed
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
communited fractures of right temporo occipital bone, there was
depressed fracture of left temporal bone. According to him, the
deceased had died due to head injury due to heavy, hard and blunt
object. He deposed that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. He added that those injuries were possible
if there was repeated attack by means of cement paver-block on the
head.
22) The other witnesses are the police witness.
PW8-A.S.I. Anil Pingale deposed that he was informed that
Annu Shetty was lying in injured condition near the temple. He along
with Mangesh Thakur went to the spot and saw the deceased lying in
a pool of blood. The Appellant came there and confessed that he had
committed Annu's murder and he surrendered himself.
PW15- P.I. Ramesh Katkar was the Investigating Officer. He
had carried major part of the investigation. He had conducted the spot
panchnama, the arrest panchnama and the recovery of paver-block
panchnama. He recorded statements of witnesses. He sent the articles
for C.A. examination.
PW16- P.S.I. Sadanand Sonkamble had recorded the F.I.R.
given by PW1-Mangesh Thakur.
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
PW17- A.P.I. Ramesh Lahigude had conducted the inquest
panchnama and had sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.
23) The C.A. report is produced on record at Exh.46. It shows
that human blood of inconclusive blood groups were found on the
earth at the spot, clothes of the deceased and on the paver-block.
This in short was the evidence led by the prosecution.
24) Learned counsel for the Appellant made the following
submissions :-
(i) The prosecution has examined only one eye-witness
i.e. PW14. He was an interested witness as he was a friend
of the deceased. The incident had taken place near a
temple, which was visited by many people and it was
surrounded by houses and therefore, the prosecution could
have examined other witnesses and residents from the
area.
(ii) There is no independent eye witness to the incident.
(iii) The evidence of PW14 is not free from doubt and
hence is not sufficient to record conviction against the
Appellant.
(iv) The recovery of paver-block is not incriminating
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
because it was recovered from an open space accessible to
all. The C.A. report shows the presence of blood, but the
blood was spread near the spot itself. Therefore, that is not
an incriminating circumstance.
(v) The nature of the quarrel shows that it was a petty
exchange of words, and it did not provide a strong motive
for the Appellant to commit the murder of the deceased.
All the other witnesses are only speaking about the quarrel
in the night. That by itself would not lead to the only
conclusion of commission of murder by the Appellant.
(vi) The deceased had admittedly consumed liquor but
no steps were taken to establish that fact. This is important
because it was possible that the injuries were caused due
to fall and not because of any assault.
(vii) He submitted that the offence may not be the one
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. but could be a lesser
offence, considering that it was a result of a quarrel.
25) Learned APP on the other hand opposed these
submissions. She submitted that there was human blood found on the
pant of the accused. The paver-block was taken out by the Appellant
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
himself from a gutter which was 4 feet deep. Therefore it was not
easily visible to others and there is an element of concealment of the
paver-block in the gutter. There is no reason to discard the evidence
of PW14. He was the eye witness. The injuries were not possible by a
fall. There was a strong link between the quarrel and the ultimate
commission of offence.
26) We have considered these submissions.
PW14-Avinash Khillare is an important witness. He was a
friend of the deceased and he was present at the time of the quarrel.
Therefore, he is a natural witness and is not a chance witness. He has
described the incident of quarrel in detail. This part of his evidence is
supported by all other friends of the deceased and the Appellant who
have also deposed exactly in the same manner in respect of the
quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. After that, PW14 had
seen the main incident in the morning when the Appellant had given
blows on the head of the deceased. In between, the Appellant had
expressed his intention to commit Annu's murder to his friends when
they had gone to consume liquor. At that time, PW14 was not present.
Therefore, there is an independent other circumstance in respect of
the threats in the form of evidence of the friends of the Appellant.
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
There is absolutely no effective cross-examination of PW14. We are
unable to observe that PW14 is not a reliable witness.
27) The evidence discussed above shows that, there were
witnesses who had seen the quarrel between the Appellant and the
deceased. To that extent, the evidence is consistent. Though, the
deceased had abused and had acted in an obscene manner during the
quarrel, the other friends separated the quarrel. The incident had
taken place after quite some time, in the morning. In between, the
Appellant had gone to a bar with his friends and had consumed liquor.
He had expressed his intention to commit the murder of Annu and in
the morning, he actually committed the murder which is deposed by
PW14. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident had taken place
on the spur of moment or as a result of a quarrel or because of grave
and sudden provocation. The Appellant had sufficient time in between
the quarrel and the incident. He had committed this murder in the
morning. He had used the paver-block and had given repeated blows.
28) The medical evidence shows that it was the case of
repeated blows. The assailant had given many blows on the head
causing fractures of the skull at different places. The medical evidence
is consistent with the evidence of the eye-witness PW14.
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
29) As rightly submitted by the learned APP that the paver-
block was taken out from the gutter but it was not visible to others
easily. It was within the exclusive knowledge of the Appellant. The
medical evidence matches with the prosecution case of assault with
that paver-block. Human blood was found on that paver-block.
Therefore, this is an additional corroborative circumstance in this
case.
30) Apart from that, as discussed earlier, the witnesses viz.
PW3 and others have deposed that the Appellant was shouting that he
had committed murder of Annu. This amounts to extra judicial
confession and the Appellant had said so before the police had come
on the scene. Therefore, it would not be inadmissible. That is another
incriminating piece of evidence in support of the prosecution case.
31) As a result, we are satisfied that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no scope to observe
that this is not the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. but a
lesser offence. As discussed earlier, it was a premeditated offence
committed with full intention, knowledge and preparation. There is
sufficient material against the Appellant in the form of direct
evidence, his conduct, extra-judicial confession and recovery of
Manoj 901-APEAL-235-2017.doc
weapon. Thus, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. The conviction
and sentence are properly recorded. Hence, the following Order.
:: ORDER ::
a) The Appeal is dismissed.
32) The Appellant be informed about this Order as he is in
custody and the Appeal is argued by a counsel appointed through
Legal Services Authority.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
