Bombay High Court
Sandeep Sanjay Tandekar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Adyal ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1 45-Cri.Apeal-520-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.520 OF 2025
Sandeep Sanjay Tandekar, R/o Minsi Tah. Pauni, Dist. Bhandara
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Adyal, Bhandara
------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri L. B. Thawkar, Advocate for appellant.
Shri I. G. Damle, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : 10th November, 2025
Criminal Application (APPA) No.884/2025
By the present application, the appellant is seeking
suspension of sentence. He has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial
No.53/2021.
2. Having heard both sides, and having gone through the
evidence, we find that evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 is something
that would make the appellant not entitled for suspension of
sentence.
3. PW-1 has seen appellant committing offence which
occurred on 20/12/2019 at about 7 pm. The evidence indicates
that appellant has committed the offence on the date when he
was released from jail in connection with the previous crime.
He was in relationship with one Ritu who got married to
Shashikant when the appellant was in jail. After having been
2 45-Cri.Apeal-520-25.odt
released from jail, appellant and Ritu were in village of which
PW-1 was Up-Sarpanch. PW-1 saw from the window of his
house, the appellant bringing Ritu at the square by holding her
hand. The appellant abused Ritu for being unfaithful to him. At
that time PW-1 called the appellant but he assaulted Ritu on her
head by means of stick. She fell unconscious. PW-1 and other
persons reached at the spot. The appellant ran away taking
advantage of darkness. At that time Ritu's husband Shanshikant
and brother-in-law came there and took Ritu to the hospital.
She died later on.
4. Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the
evidence of PW-5 to argue that PW-1 has not seen the incident.
PW-5 came to spot just after the incident. He saw Ritu lying on
ground in a pool of blood. Appellant was standing there with
stick in his hand. He was shouting that Ritu was unfaithful to
him. His mother and brother came there. The brother slapped
him twice. Thereafter appellant ran away. Ritu was taken to
hospital by her husband and other relatives. In cross-
examination, PW-5 admitted that when he saw Ritu lying on the
ground, her husband and relatives were not present. He
further admitted that PW-1 was also not present at that time.
This admission by PW-5, according to appellant's counsel is a
proof that PW-1 was not present at the spot.
3 45-Cri.Apeal-520-25.odt
5. We do not find substance in the argument inasmuch as if
the evidence of PW-1 is appreciated, he states that he saw
incidence from his house. He has also seen Ritu's husband and
brother-in-law coming at the spot. It would mean that when
Ritu's husband and brother-in-law came at the spot, PW-1 was
in his house. Keeping this fact in mind, if PW-5's evidence is
looked into, what he has admitted is that when he saw Ritu
lying on the ground, her husband and relatives were not
present. Thus PW-5 has seen Ritu lying on the ground even
prior to her husband and brother-in-law coming at the spot
whereas PW-1 has come to the spot after Ritu's husband and
brother in law came to the spot. In that sense it is quiet natural
that PW-1 would not be present at the spot when PW-5 had
reached at the spot. Such an evidence cannot be taken aid of to
jump to the conclusion that PW-1 was not present at the spot.
That being so, there is absolutely no substance in the contention
of appellant that PW-1 had not seen the incident. We have gone
through his cross-examination to find that he has withstood the
same like a rock and therefore his testimony is trustworthy.
6. Another argument is that PW-1's residence is at about
70 to 80 meters away and that incidence has occurred in dark,
therefore PW-1 has not seen the crime. The argument appears
to us to be presumptive in nature in the sense, the appellant's
4 45-Cri.Apeal-520-25.odt
counsel presumed that PW-1 could not have seen the incident.
He submits that PW-1 himself has stated that appellant ran
away taking advantage of darkness. However, the term
"darkness" is used in context with his running away in the
darkness which cannot be co-related with status of spot to argue
that PW-1 has not seen the crime. Infact the defence has not
even put up a case that it was dark at the relevant time. What is
put up is that in the night nothing was visible from PW-1's
house. This suggestion has been denied by PW-1. Further he
has stated that the distance between his house and spot is 30 to
50 meters. Thus the argument that the spot was not visible is
presumptive and is without any substance.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni
vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and anr. (2023) 6 SCC 123 which
lays down criteria while suspending sentence. It was held thus :
" 33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to
see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and
accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which,
ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If
the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the
affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say
that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have
an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept
behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of
5 45-Cri.Apeal-520-25.odt
the appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and
disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances to acquittal,
what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in
other words, something which is very apparent or gross on
the face of the record, on the basis of which, the court can
arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may
not be sustainable. The appellate court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of section 389 CrPc
and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in
the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach."
8. Thus, the Court is under an obligation to see whether the
case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial
Court can be said to be a case in which ultimately the convict
stands for a fair chance of acquittal. If the answer is in the
affirmative, the sentence should be suspended.
9. In the present case, for the reasons stated above, we do
not find that there are fair chances of acquittal, rather the
evidence indicates otherwise.
10. That being so, there is no merit in the application. The
same is accordingly is rejected.
11. Process the appeal for hearing in accordance with Rules.
(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Asmita
Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/11/2025 17:58:32
