[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prakash Tukaram Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:16459-DB
Appeal-575-2021
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
PRASAD PARAB
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PARAB Date:
2026.04.07
15:27:37
+0530
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2021
Prakash Tukaram Bhosale
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Painter
Residing at: Pawar Vasti, Keshavnagar,
Mundhwa, Tal.: Haveli, Dist. Pune. .....Appellant
V/s
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Officer in charge
Mundhwa Police Station, Pune) .....Respondent
-------
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Appellant.
Ms. Sharmila S Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.
-------
CORAM: MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 23rd MARCH 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 7th APRIL 2026.
JUDGMENT :
( Per : SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)
1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
Dist. in Sessions Case no. 823/2016 whereby the Appellant was convicted of
the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and pay a fine
of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution's case are as under:
Appeal-575-2021
a. On 26.05.2016, at about 10.30 p.m., the informant (mother of
deceased Suraj @ Bablu) observed that her son's mobile phone was
ringing. Upon answering the call, the caller had disclosed his name
as Prakash. Thereafter, Suraj woke up and called him back. After
some time, both the Accused, Prakash Bhosale and Subhash
Kengar, arrived at the house of Suraj on motorcycle and took away
the deceased Suraj on their motorcycle at about 11 p.m.
b. On 27.05.2016, at about 04.00 a.m., person named Gaikwad,
accompanied by police personnel, came to the house of the mother
of the deceased and informed her that one boy is lying in injured
condition near Renuka Mata Temple, Keshav Nagar, Mundhwa, at
Amrai. The mother identified him to be her son who was lying in a
pool of blood in an injured condition with injuries on his face and
head.
c. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 108/2016 came to be
registered with Mundhwa Police Station, Pune, for an offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the present Appellant and Subash Kengar.
d. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. The post-mortem was
performed by Dr. Amol Shinde, which disclosed that the deceased
died due to a crush injury to the head with blunt trauma to the
Appeal-575-2021
chest and abdomen. The present Appellant and the other Accused
came to be arrested on 27.05.2016.
3. Charges were framed under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the present Accused-Appellant and co-Accused Subash Kengar to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution in all examined
16 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 16). No defence evidence was led.
PW 1 Rama Vilas Atole Mother of the deceased.
Informant who lodged F.I.R.
PW 2 Vicky Vilas Atole Brother of the deceased.
PW 3 Ishwar Vithoba Tikone Watchman at Amrai and
neighbour of the deceased.
PW 4 Pradeep Babasaheb Gaikwad Owner of the Tea stall at
Mundhwa Signal Chowk,
who had accompanied the
police to the spot of incident
and identified the deceased.
PW 5 Shakur Alam Khan Pathan Police Naik who was on
night patrolling duty on
26.5.2016.
PW 6 Rameshwar Lohakare Police Constable and the
carrier who carried
Muddemal to FSL Pune.
PW 7 Kisan Madhukar Gawali Spot Panch for seizure of
blood stained stone, Beer
Bottle and one Pair of
Chappal seized on
27.05.2016.
PW 8 Lomesh Siddharam Gaikwad Panch witness for seizure of
clothes of both the accused.
PW 9 Dr. Amol Balwant Shinde Doctor who conducted
autopsy on the dead body of
deceased on 27.05.2016.
Appeal-575-2021
PW 10 Kailas Dagadu Chavan Police Constable and the
friend of the deceased whom
the deceased had called at
12 mid-night to inform
about the quarrel.
PW 11 Yogesh Kakade Police Constable and carrier
who took 6 sealed bottles at
FSL, Pune.
PW 12 Sachin Pawar Panch witness for Seizure of
Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle.
PW 13 Mandar Godambe Nodal Officer- Bharti Airtel
Ltd.
PW 14 Dattaram Angre Nodal Officer - Vodafone
Idea Ltd.
PW 15 Rajendra Bapu Chavan Investigating Officer - I
PW 16 Mahendra Jagtap Investigating Officer - II
5. After hearing the arguments of prosecution and defence, vide order
dated 18.12.2019, the Sessions Court was pleased to convict the Accused-
Appellant under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has
been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction in
Sessions Case No. 823/2016, dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune Dist., the Appellant has approached this Hon'ble Court by
way of Appeal.
7. The co-Accused had also preferred the Appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.1061 of 2021 challenging the conviction. The Appeal was admitted.
Appeal-575-2021
However, during the pendency of the Appeal, the co-Accused expired and
therefore his Appeal stood abated. This Court vide order dated 12 th February
2025 recorded the said fact.
8. We have heard Mr. Priyal Sarda, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, Learned APP for the Respondent-State.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there is no eye
witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that
although the Accused were last seen with the deceased, there was nothing
amiss or unusual as they were known to each other and in the natural course
of events, the Appellants had telephoned the deceased and thereafter had gone
with him. He further submitted that there was no quarrel which had taken
place and therefore there was no ostensible motive which has been brought on
record by the prosecution. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the only
motive according to prosecution is that there was some quarrel 4 to 6 months
back, however there was no complaint lodged for the same and therefore it
cannot be said that motive is established. The Ld. Counsel has further
submitted that PW 3 claims that he saw the deceased being assaulted by two
accused at around 12:00 a.m., however he did not inform the family of the
deceased, despite residing in the neighbourhood and instead he went back to
sleep, which is an unnatural conduct. He submitted that PW 3 deposing that he
Appeal-575-2021
had seen the deceased being assaulted by the Accused has come by way of
omission and therefore no credence can be placed on his evidence. He further
submitted that PW 3 did not know the Accused and therefore the Investigating
Agency ought to have conducted TI Parade to establish the identity of the
Accused. Lastly, he submitted that even the CA report is inconclusive and
therefore there is nothing to connect the Appellant with the alleged crime in
question and that the last seen theory cannot be considered in isolation.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the judgment of
Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan1.
11. Per Contra the Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant and the other co-Accused
and therefore the conviction deserves to be confirmed. She has further
submitted that the last seen theory is absolutely believable and there is nothing
to disbelieve the said witness who is the mother and the brother of the
deceased. Ld. APP has submitted that the injuries inflicted are brutal and as
many as 24 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. She further
submitted that the Accused called the deceased out of the house and took him
away on the motorcycle, however under Section 313 CrPC the Appellant and
the other co-Accused have failed to explain why they took him away with them
and till what time they were with the deceased and therefore the theory of last
1 (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 715.
Appeal-575-2021
seen has been established beyond reasonable doubt, in the absence of any
explanation offered by the Appellant.
12. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness.
Therefore, as held time and again by this Court as well by various courts and
the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature or
where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused. Therefore, the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the Accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused.
13. Although the Ld. Trial Court in the judgment acknowledges that the case
is based on circumstantial evidence, however the Ld. Trial Court has not
enumerated the chain of circumstances by which, according to the Ld. Trial
Court, the prosecution has proved its case. Therefore, this Court from the
evidence on record, finds the following circumstances to be relevant to
Appeal-575-2021
ascertain whether the entire chain of circumstances leading to the conviction of
the Appellant has been proved or not.
14. The following are circumstances which can be derived from the evidence
on record and which are discussed herein below in seriatim.
(a) Last Seen Together
(b) Motive
(c) Call Detail Records between the Appellant and the Deceased on
26.5.2016.
(d) Recovery of blood stained clothes
LAST SEEN TOGETHER :
15. On the point of Last Seen Together theory, the prosecution is relying
upon evidence of PW 1 - Mother of the deceased, PW 2 - Brother of the
deceased and to an extent PW 3 - Watchman at the Amrai who is also the
neighbor of PW 1 and 2.
16. PW 1, Rama Vilas Atole, the mother of the deceased has deposed that at
11.00 p.m. one phone call was received on the mobile of her son Suraj (@
Bablu), i.e., the deceased which she had attended since the deceased was
sleeping. She has deposed that the Accused Prakash told her to wake up Bablu.
She has further deposed that at the same time the deceased woke up and asked
her as to who had made a call to which she replied that Prakash had
Appeal-575-2021
telephoned. She has further deposed that Prakash had a conversation with her
son on the mobile phone and Prakash told him to come outside the house as
one program was arranged. She has further deposed that after present
Appellant and Subhash Kengar came outside the house, she herself, her son
Vicky, daughter-in-law and the deceased went outside the house. She has
deposed that the Accused parked their vehicle at some distance from the house
and they were having a talk with her son and after sometime they took him
away on their vehicle. She has further deposed that as her son did not return
back till 3 a.m., she got frightened because earlier prior to 4 to 6 months, there
was a quarrel between her son with both the Accused. She has further deposed
that at 3:30 a.m. to 4 a.m., police and one Gaikwad of their locality came to
her house to inform that one person was lying near Renuka Mata Mandir,
Keshav Nagar Ambrai Kondhwa. She has further deposed that after reaching
there, she saw her son lying in a pool of blood, having several injuries on his
body, and at the spot, there was one big stone and bottles of beer. She has
deposed that she lodged a complaint. In the cross-examination, she has replied
that at the spot of the incident, there was darkness. She has also admitted that
they had not lodged any report about the quarrel which took place 4 to 6
months ago.
17. PW 2 who is the brother of the deceased has deposed that at 11.00 p.m.
he woke up and found the door in an open condition and he had seen his
Appeal-575-2021
mother, brother and the deceased and his wife were outside the house. He has
deposed that he also came outside the house and had seen a friend of Suraj,
i.e., the present Appellant and Subhash Kengar had come near their house and
were talking to his brother Suraj. He has further deposed that the Appellant
and Subhash took his brother on a two-wheeler. He has further deposed that
he knows the Appellant and the co-Accused Subash. He has further deposed
that after the police came to his house and informed about the deceased, he
and his father went to the spot and saw Suraj in injured condition. He also saw
one stone and beer bottles. In the cross-examination, PW 2 has admitted that
Prakash and Subhash had come in front of their house between 10.00 p.m. to
11.00 p.m. and were there for 15 to 20 minutes. He has further answered that
they were talking in low voice and no quarrel took place at that time.
18. PW 3, the watchman at Amrai (Mango Orchard) and also the neighbor
of PW 1 and PW 2 has deposed he was working as a watchman at the time of
incident at Amrai and his duty hours were 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. He has
deposed that at about 11.00 p.m, he went towards his house for dinner and in
front of Renuka Mata Mandir, he saw both the Accused and deceased Suraj. He
has further deposed that he went to house, took dinner and returned back at
12.00 midnight when he saw both the Accused and deceased at Amrai. He has
also deposed that both the Accused and Suraj were consuming liquor. He has
also deposed that the Accused assaulted the deceased by beer bottle and upon
Appeal-575-2021
seeing this he got frightened and went towards his house and slept and woke
up at 6.00 a.m. He has deposed that he had seen the dead body of Suraj @
Bablu at Amrai. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had no
document to show that he was working as a watchman with one Dhume
Saheb. He has also admitted that he had not informed the police about assault
by the Accused. He has further admitted in the cross examination that he is
acquainted with the police officer and Police Officer Chavan told him to give
evidence before the Court. He has further deposed that he had not stated
anything to the police at the spot and on the next day he was called to the
police station and was shown the two arrested persons and told that these are
those persons who assaulted. He has further deposed that he identified both
the Accused at the instance of the police. Further he volunteers that he told the
police that both the persons are the same.
19. Although the accused and deceased were last seen as deposed by PW 1,
PW 2 and PW 3, the same cannot be the sole factor to come to a conclusion
that the authors of the crime were the Accused only. In the case of
circumstantial evidence where the circumstance of last seen together is
considered, there must be something more establishing the nexus between the
accused and crime. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself
and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who has
committed the crime. In the present case, apart from the fact of PW 1 and PW
Appeal-575-2021
2 having last seen the deceased and the Accused together, the prosecution has
not been able to bring on record any other evidence of the events which
happened thereafter which would connect the Appellant to the crime in
question. The recovery of the bloodstained clothes of the Appellant has also not
been conclusively proved as the report of the CA report records the findings to
be inconclusive.
20. PW 3 seems to be a got up witness by the prosecution as he has in no
uncertain terms stated that he has identified the Accused at the instance of the
police and the police had told him that these are those persons who assaulted.
PW 3 thereafter tried to salvage the situation by volunteering that he told the
police that both the persons are the same but overall this witness does not
inspire confidence.
21. Another aspect which needs to be taken into consideration is that the
deceased and the Accused were last seen together by PW 1, PW 2 at 11.00 p.m.
and the body is seen at around 3.00 a.m. in the morning. Therefore, the time
gap is also wide and therefore the possibility of any third person intervening
cannot be ruled out. It has come in the evidence of PW 3 that at around 12.00
midnight, he after seeing the Accused assaulting the deceased with a beer
bottle, got frightened and went home. That PW 3 saw the Accused assaulting
the deceased by beer bottle has come as by way of omission. Nonetheless to
draw an inference as to what happened after 12.00 midnight when PW 3 had
Appeal-575-2021
gone back to his house, till the body was found in an injured condition, there
must be some material to connect the Accused-Appellant and also some cogent
material to show that possibility of any third person intervening was
improbable. It is not even the case of the prosecution that the Amrai was
guarded by any other watchman at night or the gate was locked. Therefore,
even though the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 cannot be doubted to the extent
that they had last seen Appellant and the deceased together at 11 p.m., when
the Accused took the deceased on a motorcycle, there is no other circumstance
brought on record as to what happened thereafter between 12 mid-night and
in the intervening hours till 3 a.m. which would connect the present Appellant
to the incident in question. The other material which could have connected the
Appellant to the death of the deceased was the recovery of blood stained
clothes of the Accused-Appellant. However, the result of the Chemical Analyser
about blood stains on the clothes of the Appellant is inconclusive. The blood
stains found on stone are also inconclusive. There are no finger prints found on
the beer bottles as per Finger Print Expert report at Exhibit 67. Therefore, there
is no other evidence to connect the present Appellant to the death of the
deceased even if this Court takes into consideration the evidence of PW 1 and
PW 2 about last seen together which is a singular piece of circumstantial
evidence available against the Appellant.
Appeal-575-2021
22. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has rightly relied upon the
judgement of Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein it is observed
as under :
"12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and
necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who
committed the crime. There must be something more establishing
connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-
explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion,
by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant."
"15. The theory of last seen - the appellant having gone with the
deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of
circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the
appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong
it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance
on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is
proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and
the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity
to that in Madho Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 15 SCC 588."
23. In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nazim & Ors. vs. The State of Uttarakhand2, it has been held as under :
"Even apart from the deficiencies in identification, the 'last-seen'
theory is itself a weak link unless the prosecution establishes a
narrow time gap between when the accused and the deceased were
seen together and the recovery of the body, such that the possibility
of intervention by a third person is excluded.
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the following decisions:
a. This Court has consistently cautioned against treating the last-
seen circumstance as conclusive proof of guilt. In State of U.P. v.
Satish4, it was observed :
"22. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time gap
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were
last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that
the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author
of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases
to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the
accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
2 [2025] 10 S.C.R. 263
Appeal-575-2021
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive
evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last
seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of
guilt in those cases...."
MOTIVE :
24. The other circumstance which the prosecution has relied upon is the
"Motive". The prosecution through PW 1 and PW 2 has tried to bring on record
the motive behind the murder of the deceased. PW 1 in her deposition has
stated that prior to four to six months there was quarrel between her son and
both the Accused. Even though a feeble attempt is made by the prosecution
through PW 1 who in her deposition has stated that prior to four to six months
there was quarrel between her son and both the Accused, the prosecution has
failed to bring convincing material in support of her version. In the cross-
examination she has admitted that there was no complaint lodged about the
quarrel which took place 4 to 6 months ago about the alleged incident. PW 15
has also admitted in the cross examination that he had not collected any
evidence about the previous quarrel of the Accused No. 1 and the deceased.
25. Further to prove motive, the prosecution has also examined PW 10 -
Kailash Chavan, Police Constable attached to Mundhwa Police Station and
friend of the deceased to show that the deceased had informed PW 10 about
the quarrel which was going on between them at 12 mid-night. The said
witness has deposed that he received a phone call at about 12.00 midnight
from the deceased who told him that he alongwith his friend Prakash Bhosale
Appeal-575-2021
and one Kengar went drinking liquor at Gairan Vasti, Amrai. He has further
deposed that due to previous quarrel they were quarreling with him. He has
further deposed that he told the deceased that he was at Hyderabad and to call
on No. 100 so that police will come there. If the deposition of this witness is
analyzed at the most it can be inferred that till 12.00 midnight the Accused
and the deceased were together and on account of previous quarrel, they were
quarreling with the deceased. However, that itself cannot be a sufficient
ground to come to a conclusion that the present Appellant must have
committed the murder of the deceased. As far as the previous quarrel is
concerned there is no material on record. PW 16 has also admitted that he had
not filed any documents about the conversation between the deceased and PW
10. Motive may be an important circumstance in a case based on
circumstantial evidence but cannot take the place as a conclusive proof that the
person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the
presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong
suspicion against the Accused, but suspicion, however strong, cannot be a
substitute for proof of the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that Motive has been
successfully proved by the prosecution. Further, PW 9 Dr. Amol Shinde in his
cross examination has replied that it is not mentioned in the PM Notes that the
deceased had consumed alcohol.
Appeal-575-2021
CALL DETAIL RECORDS :
26. By examining PW 13 and PW 14, the Nodal Officers of mobile
companies, the prosecution tried to prove that the calls were made by the
Appellant on 26.5.2016 to the deceased. If the evidence of these two witnesses
is perused, it would reveal that as per the CDRs the Appellant had made phone
calls from his mobile number 9766273394 on the number of the deceased on
9146372344. PW 13 ascertained from the records that there were 3 calls made
after 10 p.m. and onwards, from mobile number 9766273394 to mobile
number 9146372344. PW 14 also confirms the said fact. PW 16, the IO has
deposed that after going through the CDRs, he came to know that the present
Appellant made three calls on 26.5.2016 i.e. at 22:48 , 22:51 , 23:14 to the
deceased. Even if the CDRs are taken into consideration to show the nexus
between the Appellant and the deceased, it will at the most prove that the
Appellant had contacted the deceased at around 11 p.m. on 26.5.2016 which
fact this Court also does not disbelieve. As stated above the theory of last seen
as deposed by PW 1 and PW 2 is found to be believable, so also the evidence
about the Appellant calling the deceased on his cell number cannot be
disputed, however the fact remains whether this piece of evidence by itself is
sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of the murder of the deceased, as there is
no evidence or other incriminating material brought on record against the
Appeal-575-2021
Appellant to connect him with this incident. Therefore, even this circumstance
cannot be said to be conclusively proved to indict the present Appellant.
RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED CLOTHES :
27. The other circumstance which is discussed by the Ld. Trial Court is the
recovery of blood stained clothes of the Appellant. To prove this circumstance,
the prosecution has examined PW 8 Panch witness. Although in the
examination in chief he has deposed that the police seized the clothes of the
Accused-Appellant, in the cross examination has clearly stated that police did
not show him the clothes and Accused and that police had obtained his
signature on already prepared panchnama. Therefore, evidence of this witness
is of no avail to the prosecution. Further as per the report of Chemical Analyser
at Exhibit 15, the blood grouping result is inconclusive and therefore no
further discussion is warranted on this issue.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES :
28. The prosecution has also relied upon PW 5 to establish the indictment
against the Appellant.
29. PW 5 is the Police Constable who was on the patrolling duty at night on
26.5.2016 alongwith one Police Head Constable Sarode. He has deposed that
at about 2 a.m. when they were on patrolling duty some boys told that there
was a quarrel near Renuka Mata Temple and the noise was being heard. He
has deposed that he called PSI Giri at Renuka Mata Temple. He has further
Appeal-575-2021
deposed that they saw one boy in an injured condition who had sustained
injury on his head, face and blood was oozing out. He has further deposed
about how he contacted the local tea stall person in the vicinity to find out the
identity of the injured person. In the cross examination he has admitted that
there was no electricity at the spot of the incident. He has also admitted that
the family member of the deceased Bablu had disclosed that the deceased had
gone with one Laxman. Examining this witness has not taken the case of the
prosecution any further. However, it has further created a doubt as to whether
the deceased had gone out with the Appellant and one Subash or with one
Laxman, as according to this witness the family member of the deceased had
disclosed to him that deceased had gone with one Laxman.
30. Thus, if the entire evidence is meticulously analyzed, no doubt it raises
suspicion, but in the absence of any cogent and convincing material being
brought on record showing involvement of the present Appellant it will be
hazardous to confirm the conviction of the Appellant. Mere suspicion, however
strong it may be, is not enough and cannot take the place of proof. This Court
therefore is of the considered opinion that from the facts and evidence, none of
the circumstances have been proved which could sustain the conviction of the
Appellant. As the result, this Court is of the opinion that the Ld. Trial Court has
erroneously returned a finding of conviction and therefore the judgment and
order convicting the Appellant deserves to be set aside.
Appeal-575-2021
31. As a result, we pass the following order :
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code recorded vide
impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2019 in
Sessions Case No. 823/16, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune, is quashed and set aside, and the
Appellant is acquitted of the charges he is charged with.
iii. The Appellant be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case.
iv. Before his release the Appellant shall execute P R
Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 481 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 437A of the Cr.PC) for his appearance, in the event
an Appeal is preferred against acquittal.
32. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending Applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
