Bombay High Court
Shankar Murlidhar Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 13 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28743-DB
(1)
criappeal-20.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20 OF 2025
Shankar Murlidhar Kamble Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
WITH
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.26/2025
The State of Maharashtra
Versus
Barikrao Shivaji Kamble & others Respondents
...
Mr. P.S. Dikle, Advocate for the appellant/informant.
Mr. N.S. Tekale, A.P.P. for respondent - State.
Ms. Tejaswini Rajput, Advocate holding for Mr. S.J. Salunke,
Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5/accused.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.
Reserved on : 07.10.2025
Pronounced on: 13.10.2025
Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. Under this criminal appeal, the appellant i.e. the
original informant Shankar Murlidhar Kamble is seeking
quashment of the judgment and order dated 19.10.2024
passed by learned trial Judge i.e. Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhoom in Sessions Case No. 7/2018, whereby the present
criappeal-20.2025.odt
respondent Nos.2 to 5, who are the original accused in the
said sessions case, have been acquitted from the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to prosecution, the appellant resides
with his wife and children at village Tamalwadi since last 10
years and is in the business of selling mineral water. His
father Murlidhar Kamble i.e. the deceased in present case
was staying with wife Kalawati, brothers Mahesh and Yuvraj,
sisters-in-law Pratibha Kamble and Archana Kamble at village
Isrup, Taluka Washi. Murlidhar and his wife Kalawati hold in
all 46 acres agricultural land at different places in the village.
Kalawati has also got tenancy land known as 'Damadi' in the
said village whereas Murlidhar Kamble got 19 acres ceiling
land within the limits of village Pardi. Present respondent
Nos.2 to 5 are close relatives of informant and since last 4 to
5 years they were picking up quarrel with Murlidhar on
account of transfer of aforesaid ceiling land in their names.
They were threatening to kill Murlidhar. Two months prior to
the incident, Murlidhar had transferred 5 acres land each in
the name of informant and his brothers Mahesh and Yuvraj
and retained 4 acres land for himself. He also applied to
criappeal-20.2025.odt
Talathi office for mutation in respect of aforesaid partition.
However, since respondent Nos.2 to 5 objected for such
mutation, the mutation entry to that effect could not be
effected.
3. On 06.02.2018 Murlidhar had told the informant
at Tamalwadi that the accused threatened him by saying that
if he enters in the said ceiling land, they would kill him. On
15.02.2018 at about 10.00 a.m. informant received a call from
one Baba Namdeo Kamble, resident of village Isrup who
informed him that Murlidhar set himself on fire in their
agricultural field. When the informant visited village Isrup on
the same day at about 1.30 p.m. police had already arrived on
the spot of incident and he saw dead body of his father in
completely burnt condition. He found that both the ankles of
the dead body were tied with binding wire and spectacle,
shoes and other belongings of Murlidhar were lying in the hut
with blood stains. Accordingly, on the report lodged by the
informant, crime was registered against the respondent Nos.2
to 5/accused and after filing of charge-sheet, case was
committed for trial to the learned trial Judge. However, the
learned trial Judge, after conducting trial, acquitted
respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Hence, this appeal.
criappeal-20.2025.odt
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
argued that the learned trial Judge has definitely erred in
appreciating the evidence on record and despite there being
evidence of complaint lodged by deceased Murlidhar during
his lifetime against respondent Nos.2 to 5, acquitted them.
He pointed out that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had in fact
present in the village at the time of incident, but the
Investigating Officer did not care to collect CDR of their
mobile phones to secure their presence in the village. He
pointed out that legs of deceased were tied with binding wire
suggestive of homicidal death. As such, he prayed for reversal
of the acquittal recorded against respondent Nos.2 to 5.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.4 and 5 strongly opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant. According to her, there is no eye
witness or witness on the last seen theory. No CDR are
placed on record by the prosecution about alleged presence of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the village at the time of incident.
According to her, there was no motive at all for the
respondents/accused to commit murder of Murlidhar as the
mutation entry in respect of partition of ceiling land i.e. Gut
No.36 admeasuring 19 acres among deceased and his sons, is
criappeal-20.2025.odt
already rejected. Further, she submitted that except
suspicion there is no concrete evidence about the alleged
criminal act by the respondents/accused. Thus, she
supported the impugned judgment.
6. On the other hand, learned APP, while arguing in
respect of the Application for Leave to Appeal bearing ALS
No.26 of 2025, reiterated the arguments made on behalf of
the appellant and submitted that there is substantial
evidence on record in respect of guilt of respondent Nos.2 to
5/accused.
7. Heard rival submissions. Also perused impugned
judgment alongwith notes of evidence.
8. It is admitted that death of Murlidhar is homicidal
one. However, prosecution did not examine Baba Kamble who
had told the informant that Murlidhar got himself immolated
in the agricultural field. Moreover, there is no eye witness to
the incident. Further, there is no witness who could tell that
deceased Murlidhar was in company of respondent Nos.2 to
5/accused just prior to the incident. Further, though the
prosecution has relied on the complaint filed by deceased in
criappeal-20.2025.odt
Washi police station mentioning that the
respondents/accused and others were threatening him of dire
consequences if he fails to transfer the disputed land in their
names, however, on going through the said complaint, it is
clearly evident that there is no reference of Gut No.36 i.e. the
land acquired by deceased under Ceiling Act. On the
contrary, complaint indicates that there was dispute between
deceased and respondents/accused in respect of the land
held by wife of deceased by name Kalawati. As such, the said
complaint has falsified genesis of the prosecution case that
the accused were giving threats to deceased on account of
land Gut No.36. Moreover, the said complaint appears to be
filed in the year 2014 and thereafter till 2018 not a single
complaint was lodged by deceased against accused about the
alleged threats. Further, though it is claimed that respondent
Nos.4 and 5 had come to village at the time of incident and
met Police Patil, but no CDR of mobile phones of those
accused are produced on record for securing their presence in
the village. Even the prosecution did not examine Police Patil
to whom the aforesaid respondents/accused allegedly met.
9. The prosecution has relied on the writing of
Murlidhar in the notebook marked M.O. No.2 wherein
criappeal-20.2025.odt
Murlidhar had alleged about threatening given by accused to
him. However, though the said writing was sent to
Handwriting Expert, but it could not be proved that it was
written by Murlidhar for want of comparable handwriting. As
such, the said notebook is also of no help to the prosecution.
10. It is extremely important to note that the
memorandum of partition (Exh.148) indicates that on
04.02.2010 deceased Murlidhar had partitioned 19 acres land
received from Ceiling Department and informant as well as
Kalawati were witnesses to the said document. It further
appears that on the basis of said document,
respondents/accused had taken objection for mutation of the
alleged partition subsequently made by the deceased among
himself and his two brothers, and therefore, the said ceiling
property could not be mutated in the names of informant and
his two brothers. As such, when the said mutation entry was
already discarded, then there was no reason for the
respondents/accused to commit murder of Murlidhar.
11. Thus, on going through the entire evidence on
record, it is apparent that the story of prosecution is based on
mere suspicion and there is no reliable evidence to connect
the respondent Nos.2 to 5/accused with the alleged crime. It
criappeal-20.2025.odt
is settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace the
proof. There is no scientific evidence on record against the
respondents/accused. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has
taken possible view in the light of material on record and
considering the scope of appeal against acquittal, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
12. The appeal being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, ALS No.26 of 2025
filed by State also stands dismissed.
(MEHROZ K. PATHAN) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde
