Bombay High Court
Sudhakar Vasant Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28759-DB
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Appeal No. 581 Of 2021
Sudhakar s/o Vasant Sonawane
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Deshshirwade, Taluka Sakri
District Dhule. .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Copy to be served on the
Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Judicature of Bombay
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. .. Respondent
*****
* Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Appellant.
* Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP for the Respondent.
*****
_______________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.
Date On Which The Arguments Were Heard : 29th SEPTEMBER 2025
Date On Which The Judgment Is Pronounced : 13 th OCTOBER 2025
_______________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T [ Per Mehroz K. Pathan, J. ] :
1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal, thereby challenging
the judgment dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhule, thereby the accused/Appellant - Sudhakar Sonawane
was found guilty and punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
Code for life imprisonment and was acquitted for all other offences
charged alongwith the aforesaid Sections. The accused/Sudhakar has
thus filed his appeal, challenging the conviction under Section 302.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under :
. That on 18.10.2017, Informant/Deepak was at home at that time
his father deceased Shriram had come home running and informed
that Sudhakar (brother of deceased Shriram) is armed with a knife and
waiting for him near bus stand. The Informant Deepak and Gaurav
therefore accompanied their father on a motorcycle which was slightly
ahead of them. Sudhakar intercepted the motorcycle of Shriram
Sonawane and before the Informant Deepak and Gaurav could reach
on the spot, Appellant took out knife and gave a blow to Shriram
who collapsed on the spot. The Informant Deepak and his brother
Gaurav took the deceased to Dr. Chaure Hospital in Ape Rickshaw.
However Dr. Chaure examined Shriram and declared him dead. From
the Hospital of Dr. Chaure, the dead body was brought to Government
Hospital, Pimpalner and thereafter the complaint was lodged by son of
the deceased i.e. Deepak Shriram Sonawane and an offence under
Section 302 and the various other Sections of IPC and 67 of the
Information Technology Act was registered against the accused person.
The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed.
3. The learned trial Court has framed the charge and the
prosecution had examined in all six witnesses in support of their claim
and relied upon various documents to prove the guilt of the
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
Appellant/accused and other accused persons in the said crime.
4. After considering witnesses led by the prosecution as well as the
defence raised by the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court has convicted the
Appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 with
life imprisonment.
5. We have heard Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar for the Appellant and the
learned APP Mr. A. V. Lavte for the Respondent sole. With their
assistance, we have also gone through the record and proceedings of
the learned trial Court. The perusal of the record and the evidence led
by the prosecution would show that PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, is the
son of the deceased and is also the eye-witness to the said incident of
assault committed by the Appellant upon the deceased Shriram. The
PW-3/Shevantabai is the mother of the deceased and accused and the
important witness PW-6 i.e. Investigating Officer/Sunil Bhabad. The
prosecution has relied upon the aforesaid three witnesses, to prove the
guilt of all accused persons informing the conspiracy to kill the
deceased Shriram on the date of incident. However the learned trial
court has found that there is no evidence to prove the charge of
criminal conspiracy against all accused persons and therefore acquitted
accused nos. 2 to 7 from the charge of conspiracy, wrongful
confinement, threatening and the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act.
6. Insofar as the evidence against accused no.1/Sudhakar, the
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of
eye-witness/Informant PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, PW-2/Dr.Dipak Jadhav
who is the autopsy surgeon, PW-3/Shevantabai Sonawane who is the
mother of deceased on the point of motive. PW-4/Dipak Bhoi who is
the spot pancha and seizure pancha. The PW-5/Samadhan Sonawane
who happens to be the panch on the memorandum of the seizure
panchanama and PW-6/Investigating Officer - Mr. Sunil Bhabad. The
deposition of PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, clearly shows that there was
dispute pertaining to agricultural land between accused who is the real
uncle and the relatives including the father deceased Shriram. The
PW-1/Deepak also stated about the quarrel on account of obscene
defamatory and threatening message posted on whatsapp messanger by
accused Devendra and Kunal and thereafter threatening to kill
Informant and their family. The PW-1 further stated on 12.10.2017 at
about 11:00 am., accused Sudhakar and Kunal charged with axe
towards the grandmother PW-3/Shevantabai (mother of accused
Sudhakar and deceased Shriram) and beat the grandmother. He further
stated that on 14.10.2017, grandmother (PW-3/Shevantabai) filed
application in police station about the incident.
7. It is further stated on the date of incident i.e. on 18.10.2017 at
07:45 am., the deceased came back from the agricultural land and
informed that accused/Sudahakar standing at bus stand holding a knife
to kill him. The witness Deepak and his brother Gaurav therefore
followed their father deceased Shriram on a separate motorcycle and
were at a distance. Accused/Sudhakar intercepted his father's bike and
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
gave knife blow on the chest of his father. Deceased Shriram who fell
down and blood was oozed from his chest. Thus there is a direct
implication of the role of present Appellant in the assault on the
deceased by the weapon knife.
8. The cross-examination of the said witness does not shatter his
testimony to the extent of disbelieving the truthfulness of his version.
All that is brought in the cross-examination is that he does not know
the nature of the dispute regarding the agricultural land and that he
did not state about Sudhakar threatening them in the FIR or that he
did not state about the incident dated 12.10.2017 in the FIR. We have
perused the FIR at Exhibit-56 which specifically speaks about the
incident dated 12.10.2017 reported by PW-1/Deepak wherein the
witness had mentioned about the assault carried out by accused
Sudhakar on PW-3/Shevantabai (mother of the deceased and accused).
Thus the learned trial Court has rightly believed the said witness, who
had specifically deposed about the role of present Appellant in
assaulting the deceased.
9. The next witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW-2/Dr.
Dipak Jadhav, Autopsy Surgeon, who had specifically narrated the
injury sustained by the deceased and the probable cause of death was
recorded as 'hamorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organ lung'. The
injury of stab wound was also noted which was 3.5 cm in length, 1
cm in width and 3 cm in depth. Lower edge was sloping upwards in
the third intercostal space medial to the right. There was mid
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
clavicular line. There were hemorrhagic edges. The separate injury to
the lung was also noted in the column no.20 pertaining to right lung
as under : upper lobe torn (along lower medial border) hammorrhage
present. Thus the said witness has further confirmed that the injuries
suffered by deceased are possible by the knife shown to the witness
which is marked as Article-A. Thus the homicidal death of the
deceased was established to bE the result of the assault committed by
the Appellant who had also recorded a memorandum under Section 27
of the Evidence Act and gave discovery of the weapon.
10. The next witness PW-3/Shevantabai who is the mother of the
accused and the deceased, was also relied on by the prosecution, who
specifically stated that the Appellant/Sudhakar was quarreling with
deceased Shriram on account of share in the agricultural field and that
the accused nos. 1 to 3 were quarreling with her husband and
demanding more land from him and that they have come there armed
with an axe and she had to run away from the spot to save herself
and that she had lodged the complaint in police station regarding the
said incident. The testimony of the said witness PW-3/Shevantabai, is
reliable inasmuch as the said witness happens to be the real mother of
the deceased as well as the accused Sudhakar and there is no
prejudice brought on record by the defense in the cross-examination,
to discredit her testimony. The motive of the share in agricultural
field lends support to the prosecution case that the Appelant Sudhakar
was having grievance about the share in the agricultural field and as
such had committed the murder of deceased. The testimony of PW-3
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
therefore corroborates the version of the sole eye-witness PW-1/Deepak
Sonawane and therefore was rightly relied upon by the trial Court.
11. The prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 are the panch
witnesses to the spot panchnama and seizure panchanama whereas
prosecution witness no.5/Samadhan Sonawane is a panch to the
memorandum under Section 27 wherein the Appellant has led to the
discovery of the weapon knife which was used by him in the
commission of the said crime. The said witness PW-5/Samadhan had
supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated about the
accused voluntarily recording a memorandum to show and agreed to
show that he would give the weapon used in commission of the crime
which was thrown near the culvert in village Desh Shirvale. The said
memorandum Exhibit79 was followed by the discovery of the weapon
Article-A i.e. a knife which was blood stained and was hidden in a
culvert. The said incriminating article i.e. knife which was the weapon
used for the commission of crime discovered at the instance of
accused, is an important incriminating circumstance, which is not
sufficiently explained by the accused. The Investigating Officer
PW-6/Sunil Bhabad had also supported the case of the prosecution,
wherein he has narrated about the investigation conducted by him.
12. Thus taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the
prosecution, it has been sufficiently established that the eye-witness
PW-1/Deepak Sonawane, has established the role of the present
Appellant in committing murder of the deceased by giving a knife
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
blow on the chest of the deceased. The doctor who has conducted the
postmortem, has corroborated the injury suffered by the deceased and
has attributed the same to the possible from the weapon recovered at
the instance of the accused Sudhakar. The PW-3/Shevantabai who
happens to be the mother of the deceased as well as the accused, had
sufficiently supported about the motive for commission of the said
crime. The panchas have also supported the prosecution case led in
particularly the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
recorded by the prosecution of accused Sudhakar on the next day of
his arrest. The Appellant has also failed to give any explanation under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to why he was implicated in the offence. Thus
after considering the entire evidence and the arguments of the learned
Counsel for the Appellant and the State and the record and
proceedings, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment
convicting the Appellant for causing death of deceased Sudhakar, does
not call for any interference.
. However the Counsel for the Appellant at this stage has
advanced the arguments for alternate punishment, for converting the
punishment from one under Section 302 to 304 part-II. It is the
submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it is a case of
single blow and that no undue advantage was taken by the Appellant
in committing more barbaric cruelty upon the deceased. It was his
submission that the prosecution had brought on record that the
deceased Shriram had seen the Appellant standing at the spot of
incident with a knife in his hand. The deceased had therefore himself
approached the accused and given a provocation to assault. It is
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that
the accused shall be given an advantage of exception-IV of Section
300, on the ground that there was no premeditation and the single
blow shows that it was inflicted in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion without the accused/Appellant having taken any undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation to
the said exception-IV also provides that it is immaterial in such cases
which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. It is
therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that
the act of the Appellant would fall under exception-IV of Section 300
and therefore the punishment of the Appellant may be converted from
one under Section 302 to 304 part-II.
13. The learned APP on the other hand submits that the fact that
the Appellant was standing on the spot of incident with a knife in his
hand was sufficient enough to establish the intention and
premeditation on the part of the accused and therefore the case would
not fall under any of the exceptions of Section 300 of IPC and would
not fall under Section 304 Part-II. It is the submission that the single
blow theory is not sufficient to prove that there was no intention to
commit murder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Virsa
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 has specifically dealt with
the single blow theory and has observed that the facts and
circumstances of each case will have to be taken into consideration
before accepting the single blow ground taken by the accused.
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
14. We have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution and
the record and proceeding with the assistance of learned Counsel for
the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. The perusal of the
testimony of the PW-2/Dr. Dipak Jadhav who has conducted the
postmortem would also show that there was no specific statement in
the examination-in-chief whether the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The
particular portion was also asked to the said Doctor that if a person
who has suffered an injury on lung is receiving prompt and proper
medical aid then he can survive. The same was answered as 'True' by
the PW-2/Dr.Dipak Jadhav. In the absence of prosecution establishing
beyond doubt about the injury caused by accused was sufficient in the
ordinary course to cause death. The intention to commit murder, by
the Appellant was not sufficiently established though the knowledge is
established.
. We find that in the facts and circumstances, the fact that the
Appellant was standing near the bus stand with a knife in his hand,
was very much known to the deceased Shriram and the
witness/Deepak and the deceased Shriram went to the accused
Sudhakar and PW-1/Deepak followed him. The act was a result of
heat of passion and the appellant did not take undue advantage.
Taking into consideration that there was only a single blow caused by
the knife and that there was no other stab wound found on the
deceased, the case of the Appellant would therefore fall under
exception-IV of Section 300 which is punishable under Section 304
part-II.
41.Cri.Appeal-581-2021.odt
15. We are therefore of the opinion that though the conviction of
the Appellant is upheld however the punishment is converted from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 part-II of IPC to the extent of his
imprisonment already undergone till date. It is informed that the
Appellant is in jail since the date of commission of offence i.e.
18.10.2017 and has almost undergone the period of eight years of
imprisonment as against the maximum sentence of ten years under
Section 304 part-II of IPC. Therefore we find it appropriate that the
Appellant/Sudhakar shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not
required for any other crime.
16. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
[ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ] [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Najeeb..
