Bombay High Court
Alka Sanjay Pimpale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:25024-DB
(1)
911 Cri.appeal 1080.2023 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2023
Alka Sanjay Pimpale,
Age : 30 years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. Ghanegaon Tq. Soyegaon
Dist. Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Sub Inspector,
Fardapur Police Station,
Tq. Soygaon Dist. Aurangabad
2] Raju Babulal Pimple,
Age : 25 years, Occ. : Labour Agriculture,
R/o. Ghanegaon Tq. Soygaon,
Dist. Aurangabad
3] Devlal @ Chhotu Babulai Pimple,
Age : 20 years, Occ. : Labour Agricuiture,
R/o. Ghanegaon Tq. Soygaon,
Dist. Aurangabad
4] Sandip Shravan Ganbas,
Age : 26 years, Occ. : Labour Agriculture,
R/o. Ghanegaon Tq. Soygaon,
Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
...
Mr. S.N. Lale Yelwatkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.J. Salgar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Chaitanya Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.
DATED : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025
911 Cri.appeal 1080.2023 (J).odt
Oral Judgment (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. Heard rival submissions.
2. The appellant i.e. the original informant Alka
Sanjay Pimple has challenged the judgment and order dated
12.08.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad
(hereinafter referred to as the "learned trial Judge") in Sessions
Case No.23 of 2022 whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 i.e. the
original accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant is seeking reversal of the judgment of acquittal.
3. As per the prosecution story, the appellant made a
phone call at about 9.30 p.m. on 02.10.2021 to her husband,
however he did not pick up the same. Thereafter at about
10.30 p.m. her cousin brother in law, who was also a Police
Patil of the village, came to her and told that her husband was
lying on the road. Accordingly, she rushed to the spot and
taken her husband to the hospital, but there he was declared
dead by the doctor. Informant then lodged F.I.R. against
respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused on the ground that the
deceased and accused were on cross term in the past and they
might have killed her husband.
911 Cri.appeal 1080.2023 (J).odt
4. To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined in all six witnesses. Out of them PW-1 is the
appellant/informant. However, she is not having any personal
knowledge of the incident. Then the prosecution has
examined PW-2 Krushna who appears to be a panch witness
on the spot panchnama. In his evidence it has come on record
that from the spot of incident, police seized one blood stained
iron pipe and wooden log. There is no dispute in respect of
such seizure. Then comes the evidence of PW-3 Deepak
Rambhau Chandane. Prosecution has alleged that accused
No.2 Chhotu had in fact called this witness who is supposed to
his friend. According to prosecution, accused No.2 had in fact
told this witness on mobile handset and thereby disclosed that
they committed murder of the husband of complainant i.e.
Sanjay Pimple. However, this witness has not supported the
case of prosecution. He has stated that though he received
phone call from accused No.2 Chhotu, but he further stated
that he could not identify the voice of Chhotu. On the
contrary, he stated that accused No.2 did not tell him anything
about the incident. It is significant to note that though the
transcript of conversation between PW-3 Deepak and accused
No.2 Chhotu is placed on record alongwith charge-sheet, but it
is extremely important to note that the prosecution has not
911 Cri.appeal 1080.2023 (J).odt
examined any witness to prove it's contents.
5. PW-4 Bhagatsing Pratap Pardeshi is the panch
witness of seizure of clothes of accused and recovery of iron
pipe and wooden log used in the crime at the instance of
accused No.3. Though this witness has stated about the
seizure of clothes and those articles in his examination-in-
chief, but in the cross-examination he has given vital
admissions, such as, the clothes of accused were already kept
in police station and that though the articles were shown to be
seized on 04.10.2021, but he signed the memorandum and
discovery panchnama (Exhs.45 and 46 respectively) only on
06.10.2021. That means, he has not supported the case of
prosecution that at the instance of accused No.3 the aforesaid
articles were recovered on 04.10.2021.
6. PW-5 Tarachand Pawar is shown as an eye witness
by the prosecution. However, as per the case of prosecution he
had only seen the accused persons beating the deceased with
the help of wooden logs and iron pipe. It is not claimed by the
prosecution that this witness had personally seen as to by
which accused the vital blow was given. Even otherwise also,
this witness has not supported the case of prosecution that he
had even seen the accused persons beating the deceased. It is
911 Cri.appeal 1080.2023 (J).odt
surprising that even after the recovery of wooden logs and iron
pipe allegedly used in commission of crime, the prosecution
has not brought on record any C.A. report indicating that
blood of deceased was found on those weapons. As such, the
evidence of prosecution is not convincing at all to establish the
guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
7. The learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record which definitely falls short to establish the
guilt of accused. Thus, there is no substance in the appeal
and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.
(MEHROZ K. PATHAN) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde
