Bombay High Court
Deelip Hanumant Khodve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31634-DB
..1.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2020
Deelip Hanumant Khodve,
Age : 28 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Yelda, Ta. Ambajogai, District Beed
At present Kharat Aadgaon, Post
Sonnathadi, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. .. Appellant
(Sole Accused)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2020
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ambajogai- Rural Ambajogai,
Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. .. Appellant
(Ori. Complainant)
VERSUS
1. Deelp Hanumant Khodve,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/i. Yelda, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed (Ori. Accused)
2. XYZ .. Respondents
...
Mr. S. J. Salunke : Advocate for the appellant in Cri. Appeal
No. 318/2020
Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale : A.P.P.for Respondent/State and
appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 548/2020
Mr. Moinpasha Shaikh Farid h/f Adv. Mr. A.L. Kanade
for Respondent No.2 in Cri. Appl. 548/2020
...
..2.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025.
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J):
-
1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2020 i.e. the
original accused in Special (POCSO) Case No. 2 of 2017, is
challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and
order dated 02.03.2020, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, at Ambajogai, District Beed (hereinafter
referred to as " the learned trial Judge") in the aforesaid special
case. Under the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge
has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing
murder of his wife- Preeti, and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-,
in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.
However, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the
appellant/accused from the offence punishable under Sections
376(2), 309, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing rape
on a minor girl, and thereafter her murder and also for attempt
to commit suicide. The learned Trial Judge has also acquitted
..3.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
the appellant/accused from the charges under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO) and 3(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in respect
of the offence committed with the aforesaid minor girl. The
State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2020 for the
aforesaid acquittal of the appellant/accused. Since both the
appeals are arising out of the same judgment, we find it proper
to deal with them jointly.
The story of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under :-
2. The present case involved murder of two women. One is
Preeti, wife of the appellant/accused, and other one is referred
as a minor girl, aged 17 years, with whom the
appellant/accused was allegedly having illicit relationship, and
who belongs to Scheduled Caste.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 06.10.2016, P.W.-1
Ranjit i.e. father of minor girl, had lodged the report with
Ambajogai (Rural) Police Station alleging that his daughter
had gone for grazing the cattle on 04.10.2016. However, on
the next morning, i.e. on 05.10.2016, she was found dead
under one Neem tree, in the field belonging to father of
..4.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
accused. Further, it was also found that Preeti- the wife of
accused also died in her farm house on the cot. There were
marks of strangulation on her neck. The police immediately
prepared inquest panchnamas on both dead bodies and shifted
them for post mortem. In the meantime, it was also discovered
that the appellant/accused had consumed poison and found
lying beside the dead body of minor girl and was shifted by the
relatives to the Government Hospital, Ambajogai. During the
investigation, it was confirmed that wife- Preeti died due to
manual strangulation (throttling) associated with head injury,
and minor girl died due to manual strangulation. It was also
found that the minor girl was carrying pregnancy of one and a
half months. During the investigation, it revealed that the
appellant/accused was having illicit relations with minor girl
since past few months. When his wife- Preeti came to know
about the same, she objected to that relationship. The quarrel
took place between appellant and his wife- Preeti, which led to
the incident of committing murder of Preeti by throttling at the
hands of appellant/ accused. Further, it was also revealed
that in order to conceal his guilt and to avoid exposure of
pregnancy, appellant/ accused murdered the minor victim as
well. The appellant/ accused also wrote a false note by putting
..5.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
blame on his wife's character and kept it inside her blouse. He
then attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison, but
somehow he survived.
4. After completion of investigation, the police authorities
charge sheeted the appellant/ accused for the charges
mentioned above. The learned Trial Judge after conducting
the trial, convicted the appellant for committing the offence of
murder of his wife, but acquitted him from the offence
committed in respect of minor girl.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
submits that the learned Trial Judge has already acquitted the
appellant/ accused from the offence allegedly committed by
him in respect of minor girl, by observing that prosecution
could not establish the motive as well as fact of sexual
intercourse between him and minor girl. Further, it was also
revealed through the D.N.A. report that the appellant/ accused
was not found to be biological father of the foetus. Further,
the Trial Court has also recorded acquittal of the appellant/
accused in respect of his act of committing suicide by
consuming poison for want of medical evidence to that effect.
He pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence on record
..6.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
to show that the appellant, who was present in the farm house
along with the wife- Preeti at the time of the incident, but the
learned Trial Judge by wrongly relying on Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 connected him with the murder of
Preeti. He submitted that even the conviction of the appellant
for committing murder of his wife is recorded on the basis of
hearsay evidence, which is not admissible. He pointed out that
there is no evidence about the relation between appellant and
minor girl, and therefore, there was no occasion for wife- Preeti
to take suspicion over such relation. Even the D.N.A test
confirms the fact that accused was not found to be a biological
father of the foetus, which the victim girl was carrying. He
pointed out that there is no satisfactory evidence in respect of
accused being lastly seen in the company of his wife- Preeti at
the time of incident. He specifically pointed out that, there
was no medical examination of accused to ascertain whether
there were external injuries found on his person at the time of
alleged resistance. According to him, throttling of two women,
without any resistance, is highly impossible. According to him,
the learned Trial Judge wrongly inferred that since the
handwriting of accused was found similar to the chit received
from the person of his wife- Preeti, the accused is author of
..7.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
crime. The learned counsel for the appellant/ accused even
took exception to the evidence of Handwriting Expert and
termed his opinion as unreasoned. Therefore, he submitted
that the suspicion howsoever grave, cannot replace the truth,
and in the case based on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution has to establish each and every circumstance
forming a complete chain indicating the guilt of the accused.
He further pointed out that the learned trial Judge has
observed that motive is not proved in the instant case and,
therefore, it is actually beneficial to the appellant/ accused.
He pointed out that there was registration of A.D. on the
information given by the father of appellant/ accused, but he is
not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, no opportunity of
giving explanation is given to the accused in respect of the A.D.
Thus, he prayed for setting aside the conviction of the
appellant. In support of his submissions, he also placed
reliance on the following judgments :-
(i) Hanuman Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.
[AIR 1952 SC 343]
(ii) Sou. Ranjana Vs. State of Maharashtra
[2018 (3) A.B.R. (Cri.) 487]
(iii) Rahim Ibrahim Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra
[2019(3) ABR (Cri) 63]
(iv) Kameshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar
..8.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1916
(v) Sunil Kundu and another Vs. State of Jharkhand
2013 AIR SCW 2278
(vi) Sakharam Vs. State of M.P.
AIR 1992 Supreme Court Cases 758
(vii) Sivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
AIR 2021 SC 1249
(Viii) Mahindra Vs. Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb
AIR 2017 SC 2397
(ix) State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal and Others
AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3318
(x) Madan Mohan Singh and Others Vs. Rajni Kant &
Another 2010(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 409
6. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant/ accused. She
pointed out that on the testimony of P.W. 2, 3 and 8, the
prosecution has established the motive. Moreover, P.W.3 father
of Preeti, has also established the motive for killing Preeti,
which is for hiding relation between the appellant and minor
girl. The learned A.P.P. further submits that, even in absence
of motive, conviction can be based on proved circumstances
and, therefore, failure of appellant/ accused in giving plausible
explanation, as to in which condition his wife died, definitely
indicates his guilt. The learned counsel for the informant
adopted arguments of learned A.P.P.
..9.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
7. So far as acquittal of accused in respect of the offence
regarding minor girl is concerned, the learned A.P.P. submits
that, she was definitely below the age of 18 years, which is
proved by P.W. 13 the Headmaster. Further, it is also revealed
that the appellant/ accused was found lying beside the dead
body of minor girl. Thus, the learned A.P.P. submits that the
appellant/ accused is also liable to be convicted for committing
sexual intercourse with the minor girl and thereafter causing
her murder. In support of her submissions, the learned A.P.P.
also relied on following judgments :-
(i) Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
AIR Online 2023 SC 836
(ii) Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1262
8. Heard rival submissions and with the able assistance of
learned counsel for the accused, the learned counsel for
informant and learned A.P.P., we have gone through the record
and proceedings, in the light of their respective submissions.
9. It is significant to note that, though the
appellant/accused is charged with the offence of committing
double murder, but the allegations against him are threefold.
Firstly, it is alleged by the prosecution that, three months prior
..10.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
to 4.10.2016, at village Yelda, Taluka Ambejogai, District Beed,
the appellant/accused repeatedly committed rape/aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on one minor girl, (who is
hereinafter referred to as " the victim girl") and made her
pregnant. It is also alleged by the prosecution that, during the
intervening night of 04.10.2016 and 05.10.2016, he committed
murder of victim girl by manual strangulation at village Yelda.
Secondly, it is alleged by the prosecution that, in the same
intervening night, the appellant/accused committed murder of
his own wife Preeti, in his house. Thirdly, it is alleged by the
prosecution that, after committing two murders, the
appellant/accused also tried to commit suicide by consuming
poisonous substance. Admittedly, the appellant/accused has
been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge from the offence in
respect of the victim girl and for attempting to commit suicide.
However, the learned Trial Judge has convicted him for
committing murder of his own wife. So far as his acquittal
from the offence in respect of victim girl and attempt to commit
suicide, the State has filed appeal, alleging that the learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in respect of the
aforesaid allegations, whereas the appellant/ accused is
challenging his conviction for the offence of committing murder
..11.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
of his own wife.
10. In respect of all these charges against the
appellant/ accused, the prosecution has examined in all 17
witnesses, and also relied on voluminous documentary
evidence. However, to avoid repetition, we would like to discuss
the evidence of prosecution in respect of the allegations against
the appellant/accused as and when it is required and at
relevant time. Admittedly, deaths of victim girls as well as
Preeti i.e. wife of the accused being unnatural and homicidal,
are not disputed. It has been established in the evidence of Dr.
Vishwajeet Pawar, who had conducted postmortem on both the
dead bodies, that Preeti died due to manual strangulation
(Throttling) associated with head injury, whereas victim minor
girl died due to manual strangulation. Though, from the
suggestions given to the witnesses in the cross-examination on
behalf of the appellant/accused, it appears that, his defence
was of total denial, and death of Preeti was possible due to falls
on rocks and stone in the hilly area, but apparently such
defence is highly improbable.
11. So far as offence in relation to the victim girl is
concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that, the appellant
..12.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
repeatedly committed rape on her, and impregnated her, and
ultimately committed her murder, and thereafter tried to finish
himself by consuming poison. According to the prosecution,
the victim girl was minor and hence the appellant/accused
was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act. Therefore, we would like to discuss the
evidence of prosecution witness in as much as it relates to the
offence against victim girl, in the beginning.
12. PW-1 is the father of the victim girl, has lodged
report in the instant case, which is at Exh. 27. According to
his evidence, the victim girl was 16 years of the age at the
time of incident, and at the relevant time, the
appellant/accused and his wife Preeti were residing nearby to
his residence. The victim girl used to graze cattle near the
agricultural field of the accused, where the accused was also
grazing his bullocks. The informant has deposed that when he
came to know that accused was talking to her daughter, he
told accused not to do so. According to him, on 04.10.2016,
victim went to graze the cattle and at the relevant time,
accused was also grazing his cattle. In the night of that day,
when he had slept near the heap of corn, while his children
were sleeping in the house, victim girl was found missing in
..13.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
the next morning. Then he went to Ambajogai Police Station to
lodge missing report and police asked him to wait for a day.
Later on, one Meghraj informed that, victim girl was found
dead in the field of the accused. He also found Preeti- wife of
the appellant/accused lying dead inside the house, with
reddish and blackish marks on her throat. He also gathered
from other persons that the appellant/accused was found lying
nearby after consuming poison and he was then given water
and shifted to hospital. According to this witness, the
appellant/accused was having love affair with the victim girl,
and from that relationship, victim girl became pregnant, to
which Preeti had objected. Thus, to conceal his affair with the
victim girl, the accused committed murder of the victim girl as
well as his own wife Preeti. He has stated about alleged
complaint to the police which is at Exh. 27.
13. The wife of informant, i.e. mother of victim girl has
also deposed similarly to him about the incident and
additionally stated that, the appellant/ accused and the victim
girl had become friends, and the victim girl used to go to the
house of accused for charging her mobile handset. It is
extremely important to note that, there is no direct evidence
against the appellant/accused in respect of offence regarding
..14.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
the victim girl, but the prosecution has made allegations
against him on the basis of circumstances, such as victim girl
and accused used to graze their cattle at the same place and
therefore, they became friends, and that the victim girl used to
go to the house of the accused for charging her mobile
handset. Further, the prosecution arrayed the appellant/
accused in the instant crime as the victim girl found dead in
the agricultural field of father of appellant/accused, and that it
was informed that, accused was found lying near the victim
after consumption of poison.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that love
relationship between the appellant/ accused and the victim
girl flourished when they used to graze their cattle in the hilly
area, near the farm house of the appellant. However, in the
cross-examination of the informant i.e. father of the victim, it
has come on record that around 86% of the villagers reside in
that hilly area and the nearby area of farm house of the
appellant. Many farmers used to graze their cattle. Under
such circumstances, the alleged love affair between the
appellant and the victim girl would not have gone unnoticed,
as rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge. It is also
important to note that when father of the victim, in the
..15.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
morning of 05.10.2016 could not find victim inside the house,
he took search through the village. However, when it was case
of the prosecution that there was love relations between the
appellant and the victim girl, then it appears highly suspicious
that the informant did not care to ask the appellant or his
parents regarding disappearance of his daughter. Though wife
of the informant, in her deposition, stated that they doubted
the accused being responsible for missing of their daughter,
but she also did not search the farm house of the appellant or
inquired with him about her daughter. By this conduct of
parents of the victim girl, the story about love affair between
the appellant and the victim girl has become highly suspicious
and unreliable.
15. According to the prosecution, when wife- Pretti of
the appellant got knowledge about love affair between appellant
and victim girl, the appellant killed Preeti as well. However,
there is nothing on record to show that somebody had seen
the appellant and victim girl together, nor the victim had
confide with somebody about her love affair with the
appellant/ accused during her life time. As such, the fact that
victim used to graze cattle near the agricultural land of
accused, where the appellant/ accused also used to graze his
..16.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
cattle, cannot establish that they were having love affair.
16. Further, the prosecution has also claimed that the
victim girl often used to go to the house of the appellant/
accused to charge battery of her mobile phone. However, the
report (Exh.27) lodged by the informant indicates that, there
was a foot way passing near to the house of the informant and
it was being used by the appellant and his wife- Preeti to
approach their house and agricultural field. Therefore, merely
by passing through the said way near the house of victim girl,
one cannot say that the appellant used to make contact with
the victim girl or the victim girl was visiting house of appellant
for charging her mobile phone and that these facts are
sufficient to establish the fact of sexual relationship between
herself and the appellant / accused. It is extremely important
to note that the letter (Exh.144), clearly indicates that blood
sample of appellant was sent to Forensic Science Laboratories,
Vidynagari, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai for D.N.A.
testing along with the D.N.A. sample of victim girl. The report
to that effect is at Exh.98 and the result of analysis clearly
indicates that the appellant is excluded as biological father of
the fetus of victim girl. This conclusively shattered the
prosecution case that the appellant impregnated the victim girl
..17.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
and to conceal the said fact, killed her by strangulation.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
argued that the learned Trial Court definitely erred in holding
the victim girl as major, since the prosecution could not
establish the fact that she was below the age of 18 years, at the
time of the incident. He pointed out that the learned Trial
Court erroneously discarded the evidence of headmaster,
according to whom, her birth date was 7.6.2000 and thus at
the time of incident she was 17 years of the age. However,
when the D.N.A report on record clearly bars the appellant/
accused from being the biological father of foetus, then we are
not inclined to discuss this aspect, as the evidence of the
prosecution fails to establish the alleged sexual relations
between the appellant and the victim girl. Thus, the
circumstantial evidence on record in respect of the alleged
offence of the appellant of committing rape on victim girl and
her subsequent killing, is not at all convincing and sufficient.
As such, we find it proper on the part of learned trial Judge of
acquitting the appellant at least from the offence in respect of
victim girl.
18. So far as allegations against the accused in respect
..18.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
of committing offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, the prosecution has claimed that the
accused was found lying near the victim girl after consuming
the poison. However, P.W.-17 Dr. Rameshwar Kothule has
specifically deposed that when on 5.10.2016, he was attached
to S.R.T.R Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai as Chief
Medical Officer, the appellant was brought in the said hospital
with history of consumption of unknown poison and with
complaints of vomiting and headache. The appellant was then
forwarded to the Medicine Department for further opinion and
admitted in Ward No.18, and subsequently discharged on
10.10.2016. Though this witness issued M.L.C. certificate
(Exh.133), but in the cross-examination itself, this witness
admitted that the gastric lavage of the appellant though
collected, but was not forwarded for the chemical analysis. He
has also stated that symptoms and tests of the accused were
found normal and therefore, could not opined whether the
appellant had consumed poison. Thus, such type of evidence
coming from expert witness has definitely falsified the story of
the prosecution that after killing wife- Preeti as well as victim
girl, the appellant also tried to commit suicide by consuming
poison. The prosecution has examined one Khandu Baliram
..19.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
Karnal, (P.W.-6) being an adjacent agriculturist to establish the
fact that accused was lying near the dead body of the victim.
However, this witness has denied the said fact. Moreover, one
another agriculturist Pralhad Ganpatrao Khodve (P.W.-7) has
also denied that he saw appellant and the victim speaking to
each other. He further denied that accused was found lying
near the dead body of the victim and confessed before him
about consumption of poison. In the cross-examination of
these witnesses nothing favourable to the prosecution has
been elicited. There is no direct evidence to the fact that
accused was found lying near the victim girl at the relevant
time and therefore, evidence of parents of the victim as well as
father and brother of Preeti, which is in form of hearsay
evidence about the said fact, is not admissible. Therefore, the
case of the prosecution as regards the attempt to commission
of suicide by the appellant also fails.
19. So far as charge against the accused for committing
murder of his own wife- Preeti is concerned, it has already
come on record that death of Preeti was homicidal due to
manual strangulation (throttling) associated with head injury.
For this charge, the case of prosecution is entirely based on
..20.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
circumstantial evidence only. There is no direct evidence of
any eye witness in this regard. It is significant to note that the
appellant took defence that he along with his parents and wife-
Preeti were residing jointly in village Yelda and on 04.10.2016,
he had gone to the fields of Ganpati and Mauli mainly the
parental uncles of Preeti, at Sonhivra, Taluka Parali, District
Beed. He then performed agricultural activities there for the
whole day and then stayed in the field of Mauli in the night.
Further, according to him, on 05.10.2016, when he returned
back to Yelda, no one was there and therefore, he went to the
field and then came to know about the death of Preeti as well
as the victim. Thus, he took the defence of alibi that he was
not present at the spots of incidents at the relevant time.
However, to establish such alibi, the appellant did not examine
his parents to establish that he and Preeti were jointly residing
with them. He also did not examine either Ganpati or Mauli to
establish the fact that during the intervening night of
04.10.2016 and 05.10.2016, he was with them. Therefore,
mere statement of the appellant/ accused is not sufficient to
establish the aforesaid plea of alibi.
20. The case of the prosecution in respect of murder of
wife -Preeti is based on circumstantial evidence. Here the
..21.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
learned counsel for the appellant/ accused relied heavily on
the judgments in cases of Hanuman Govind Nargundkar
and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [A.I.R. 1952
Supreme Court 343] Bombay High Court in Sou. Ranjana
Vs. State of Maharashtra [2018(3) ABR (Cri)487] and
Rahim Ibrahim Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra, [2019 (3)
ABR (CRI) 63] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed
the scope of circumstantial evidence and it's appreciation. It
has been laid down that in order to invoke the provision of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 prosecution
ought to have brought on record the evidence of last seen
together or presence of accused at occurrence. It is also held
that suspicion however grave may be, cannot be a substitute
for proof. Further, motive assumes much importance in the
case based on circumstantial evidence. It has been observed
in the case of Rahim (supra) that Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from its
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and if there is no positive evidence that at the time of
incident, husband and wife were last seen together in the
house, the inference drawn by the Sessions Court in respect of
guilt of accused become erroneous and illegal. Thus, from the
..22.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
aforesaid observations, a clear settled position emerges that in
the case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must prove each and every circumstances independently
pointing towards the guilt of the accused. There is no dispute
about the aforesaid settled principle. However, on going
through the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned
trial Judge based conviction against the appellant on the
following circumstances
(i) Preeti was found dead in the farm house shared
by herself and the appellant.
(ii) She died due to manual strangulation and
therefore, her death was homicidal.
(iii) The appellant, who failed in establishing the
plea of alibi was very well present in the house.
(iv) The appellant could not explain satisfactorily about
the cause of her death, as his plea of alibi remained
unproved.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant thus heavily
relied on the fact that no evidence has come on record from
any witness that they actually saw the appellant and his wife-
Preeti in their house at the time of incident. Admittedly, no
such witnesses are forthcoming in the instant case. However,
..23.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
it is the case of the prosecution that police had seized one chit
near the dead body of Preeti and this fact has been duly proved
by the investigating officer Ashok Latkar, (P.W.15) by deposing
that he prepared spot panchnma Exh.23, wherein it is
mentioned that one chit at article 'A' and one ball pen, were
found near the dead body of deceased -Preeti. Though, one
witness namely Subhash Chopde, (P.W.-9) had proved the
specimen handwriting panchnama Exh.75, wherein specimen
handwriting of the accused/ appellant was obtained, but it
has been also revealed that the said specimen handwriting of
the appellant was not sent to the handwriting expert for its
comparison with the chit found near the dead body of Preeti.
However, as per the evidence of Babasaheb Misal (P.W.-10) it is
established that Tahsildar, Beed directed him to act as panch
for collecting specimen handwriting of accused. He has
specifically deposed that accused/ appellant wrote on six
blank pages in their presence and those six papers were seized
under panchnama. Nothing adverse has come on record in his
cross-examination. The evidence of P.W.-11 Sanjay Kathar i.e.
the Handwriting Expert indicates that he found similarities in
the disputed handwriting in chit article 'A' and subsequent
handwriting Exh.83/1 to 83/6 obtained from the appellant/
..24.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
accused under aforesaid panchnama. Those similarities are
recorded in his statement of reasons, which is at Exh.86.
Thus, it has been established that the disputed handwriting in
chit at article 'A' (Q-1) was written by the writer, who wrote
specimen handwriting Exh.S/1 to S/6. Thus, on the basis of
this evidence, inference can safely drawn that it was the
appellant/ accused, who had written the chit article 'A'. It is
to be noted that finding of such chit in the handwriting of the
accused near the dead body of Preeti clearly indicates that the
appellant/ accused was present in his farm house along with
deceased- Preeti. Further, the said chit was also written on
the torn photocopy of S.S.C. Certificate of the appellant itself.
Therefore, there is no plausible explanation coming from the
appellant/ accused as to how his important personal
document was used for writing the said chit.
22. It is to be noted that to get the aid of Section 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act, it is not necessary in all cases that
somebody must see the accused and the deceased together
lastly, but the finding of chit near the dead body in the
handwriting of the accused, can also be a circumstance
showing his presence with the deceased, at the time of the
incident. Therefore, considering this aspect, it can be inferred
..25.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
that prosecution has definitely established the presence of the
accused with the deceased. Once such presence of the
appellant is established, then as per the Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act, the appellant is under obligation to offer
plausible explanation in what circumstances, the death of
deceased- Preeti took place.
23. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is
burden cast upon the accused to offer cogent explanation in
respect of the facts, which are specially within his knowledge.
The accused simply cannot get away by keeping mum or
offering no explanation. Though, it has been observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sivaji Chintappa Patil Vs.
State of Maharashtra [AIR 2021 SC 1249] that false
explanation or non-explanation cannot be used as a link to
complete the chain of circumstances against the accused, but
as per the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka ( 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1262], if the prosecution has succeeded in proving the fact
from which reasonable inference can be drawn regarding
death, then it is the responsibility of the accused to offer
plausible explanation in respect of his innocence. Therefore,
when the prosecution has established the chain of
..26.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
circumstances, as observed by the learned Trial Judge and
discussed earlier in this judgment, it is the appellant, who is
supposed to establish his innocence, by offering plausible
explanation.
24. In the instant case, admittedly, appellant and his
wife- Preeti were residing in the farm house together. Further,
by way of the chit at article 'A', the presence of appellant was
also established with the deceased, at the time of incident.
There were no signs of dacoity or theft committed in the farm
house of the appellant and there were no sings either an
intruder or third person had entered inside the said house for
committing the alleged act. The appellant also did not
examine his parents to establish that he was not residing in
the farm house, but resides in the village itself. Moreover, the
evidence of father and brother of deceased -Preeti also
indicated that the appellant and deceased Preeti were residing
in the said farm house and the same remained unchallenged.
25. Thus, it appears that the appellant has definitely
failed to prove his defence of alibi. Moreover, all the
circumstances in the case of death of Preeti, are pointing
towards the guilt of the accused/ appellant only and therefore,
..27.. Al-318-548-20 .odt
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge, by considering
all these things, definitely appears proper. As such, we find no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed.
(MEHROZ K. PATHAN) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ysk/
