Bombay High Court
Shivputra Sidramappa Dhule vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26354-DB
(1)
criappln-2229.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2229 OF 2025
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.479 OF 2025
Shivputra Sidramappa Dhule Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
...
Mr. Ram Shinde, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.R. Wakale, A.P.P. for respondent - State.
Ms. Savita Mapari, Advocate assisting the A.P.P.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.
Reserved on : 22.09.2025
Pronounced on: 25.09.2025
Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. By filing this application, the applicant who is the
sole accused in Sessions Case No.70 of 2019, is seeking
suspension of his substantive sentence of imprisonment
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir,
District Latur (hereinafter referred to as, "learned trial Judge")
in the aforesaid sessions case under the judgment and order
dated 02.04.2025. The applicant is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-
alongwith default clause.
criappln-2229.2025.odt
2. As per the prosecution story, in the intervening
night of 04.06.2019 and 05.06.2019, the applicant committed
murder of his father-in-law Ganpati Biradar by giving blow of
pickaxe on the backside of his head.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that
there is no eye witness to the incident and that though the
prosecution claimed that deceased was seen in the company
of applicant lastly, but no such last seen theory is there on
record. According to him, the informant i.e. wife of deceased,
while lodging the F.I.R. had not taken any doubt on the
present applicant, but in the said F.I.R. (Exh.18) she has
expressed doubt on her brother-in-law Ram in respect of
murder of her husband, since there was long standing
dispute between them over the ancestral land. He pointed out
that the prosecution came with concocted story of having
illicit relation of the applicant with his sister-in-law Rundrani
to whom he had disclosed on phone that he killed Ganpati.
Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that the
applicant was not in Malewadi and no blood stains were
found on the pickaxe allegedly recovered at the instance of
applicant. He submitted that such pickaxe is common
implement, and therefore, it's recovery from the field itself is
doubtful.
criappln-2229.2025.odt
4. On the contrary, learned A.P.P. vehemently argued
that recovery of murder weapon is at the instance of the
applicant. Moreover, four witnesses including Rudrani and
Renuka, who is the wife of applicant, have deposed about the
guilt of applicant and specifically stated that on 04.06.2019
applicant was with the deceased throughout the day and in
the night also he was seen in the farm house of deceased by
brother-in-law of the informant Shakuntala. Further, he
submitted that doctor has proved that death of Ganpati as
homicidal, and therefore, the learned trial Court rightly
convicted the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Savita
Mapari assisting the A.P.P. also adopted the aforesaid
argument and pointed out that the applicant was seen in the
farm house of deceased just before the incident.
6. Heard rival submissions. Also perused entire
evidence on record alongwith the impugned judgment.
7. It is significant to note that while lodging report
(Exh.18) dated 05.06.2019 the informant i.e. wife of deceased
by name Shakuntala had not expressed any doubt on the
applicant in respect of murder of her husband, but in fact
criappln-2229.2025.odt
expressed suspicion over her brother-in-law Ram Gundappa
Biradar, since there was dispute about taking water from the
common well between them. The alleged involvement of the
applicant appears to be disclosed only after 14 days when the
informant Shakuntala in her supplementary statement
disclosed that there was illicit relation between applicant and
her daughter-in-law Rudrani and from her only she came to
know that the applicant killed her husband, as he was
reluctant to give the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him for
releasing him from the offence of theft.
8. Further, it appears that the learned trial Judge
has convicted the present applicant on the grounds that
Rudrani, Renuka, Shakuntala and Maruti had disclosed that
the applicant was in company of deceased at the time of
incident. However, if the report (Exh.18) is seen, then it is
evident that nothing was stated by the informant Shakuntala
that the applicant was also with the deceased on 04.06.2019
for the purpose of attending the court proceedings. Further,
it appears that Shakuntala has improved her version by
giving supplementary statement 14 days after the incident.
Theory of illicit relations between Rudrani and applicant as
stated by her and also by wife of applicant, has come on
criappln-2229.2025.odt
record after 14 days only. Further, if the evidence of PW-7
Maruti who is also brother-in-law of the informant
Shakuntala, is seen, then it is evident that he has deposed
that he saw applicant on the roof of farm house of deceased
on 04.06.2019 in the headlight of tractor. It is to be noted
that between the field of Digambar admeasuring 4 Acres and
the land of deceased there is 5 Acres land of this witness.
Under such circumstances, noticing the applicant on the roof
of the farm house of deceased from such a long distance and
that too in the headlight of tractor, appears highly
improbable. Moreover, this witness has further deposed that
he then saw deceased coming to his house. It is extremely
important to note that none of the prosecution witness had in
fact seen the applicant and deceased together. Therefore,
there cannot be any last seen theory in the instant case.
9. The case is based on circumstantial evidence only,
and therefore, the prosecution has to establish a complete
chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant.
It is to be noted that though the recovery of pickaxe which
was allegedly used in commission of crime, was shown from
the applicant, but it appears that it was from open field.
Moreover, no blood stains were found on the said pickaxe and
criappln-2229.2025.odt
there is no C.A. report also on record. Disclosure about the
alleged involvement by the applicant has come after 14 days of
the lodging of report (Exh.18). Moreover, it is also significant
to note that at the time of trial this Court had in fact granted
bail to the applicant and during entire trial he was on bail.
Therefore, considering the evidence on record, it appears that
two views are possible. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to
release the applicant on bail during the pendency of this
appeal by suspending his sentence of imprisonment. In view
of the same, the application stands allowed. Substantive
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant under
judgment and order dated 02.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.70
of 2019, is hereby suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and the applicant is released on execution of P.R. bond
of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
10. The appeal be removed from the category of "jail
appeal".
11. Application is disposed of accordingly.
(MEHROZ K. PATHAN) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde
