[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gita Gajanan Sontakke And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Aheri Tah.Aheri ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:1144-DB
27.apeal.758.22 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2022
Smt. Gita Gajanan Sontakke and another
vs.
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. Aheri, District Gadchiroli
and others
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. R.D. Hajare, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
None for Respondent Nos.2 to 7.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026.
The victims have filed the present appeal under Section 372 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order
dated 04/03/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No.76/2016, thereby acquitting respondent
Nos.2 to 7 (original accused Nos.1 to 6) of all the charges. Respondent
Nos.2 to 7 were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
02. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
On 13/09/2014, Pankaj Gajanan Sontakke left home around
8:00 - 8:30 a.m. for his work as a driver and informed his family that he
would return by 8:00 p.m. His mother-Gita waited for him, but he did not
return. At about 10:30 p.m., Vijay Gupta came to Gita's house and informed
her that Pankaj was lying in front of the police chowki, without explaining
further. Gita rushed to the spot and saw Pankaj and Sandip Ijgamkar lying
on the road. She went back home to call her son Pravin, but he was not
present. On returning to the spot, she found a crowd had gathered and both
Pankaj and Sandip had been taken to the hospital of Dr. Saluja. At the
hospital, she found that both Pankaj and Sandip had died. She noticed
bruises and scratch injuries on Pankaj's legs and found the circumstances
suspicious as both had died at the same place. On inquiry, it was revealed
that the accused persons were gambling in a room belonging to Shri Gupta,
where Pankaj had won a large amount of money. A quarrel arose between
the accused and Pankaj over the gambling money. It was alleged that the
accused smothered Pankaj with a pillow to kill him. Sandip, who witnessed
the incident, was also smothered with a pillow and killed. The dead bodies
were then thrown near a shop in front of police chowki. Gita lodged a report
at Aheri Police Station, leading to registration of Crime No. 7/2015 for the
offence punishable under Section with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. The Investigating Officer (PW-14) conducted the investigation
and filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses.
The defence of the accused is one of total denial. The trial Court, having
considered all the attending circumstances, held that the involvement of the
accused was not established by the prosecution. The said finding is under
challenge.
04. We have heard Mr. R.D. Hajare, learned Counsel for the
appellants and Mr. A.B. Badar, learned A.P.P. for the State. We have gone
through the material placed before us. We may summarize the reasons
assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, as under:
i. PW-1 does not depose about any overt act by the accused
leading to the deaths of Pankaj and Sandip, nor does her
evidence establish a link between the accused and the alleged
act of murder.
ii. The FIR (Exh.55) was lodged after an unexplained delay of
about 4% months and does not describe specific overt acts or the
manner of commission of the offence, thereby rendering it
unreliable.
iii. Other prosecution witnesses (PW-2 to PW-12) either do not
support the prosecution case, turn hostile, or their evidence is
irrelevant and has no nexus with the alleged offence.
iv. The alleged recovery of a pillow is not proved in accordance
with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as there is no
admissible disclosure statement and the panch witnesses do not
support the recovery.
v. The medical opinion regarding death by smothering is vague,
unsupported by post-mortem findings, and does not conclusively
establish homicidal death.
vi. There is no evidence of common intention, prior meeting of
minds, or any incriminating overt act attributable to any of the
accused.
vii. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients
of Sections 299, 300 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Court concluded that the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the I.P.C. All the accused are entitled to acquittal.
05. Undisputedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident. The trial
Court has held that even the homicidal death of Sandip and Pankaj is not
proved. Dr. Akhil (PW-13), who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the
deaths might have occurred due to smothering.
06. In the cross-examination, he admits that if a person is smothered
by hand, there is a possibility of abrasions near the nose and also the
possibility of injuries to the inner lips. He further admits that if smothering is
done by sitting on the chest, there is a possibility of injury or fracture to the
ribs of the deceased. None of such injuries were found in the post-mortem
examinations, the reports of which are at Exh.93 and Exh.94.
07. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that smothering
has been done by using the pillow and not by hands. He further submits
that the pillow (Article-A) used by the accused was recovered at the instance
of Kartik-respondent No.7.
08. This argument is not acceptable. Apart from the fact that the
panch-witness (PW-14) did not support the prosecution version on recovery.
The prosecution has led no evidence to connect pillow with the crime. In
absence thereof, the discovery will be of no help to the prosecution.
09. As such, Anil (PW-4) was projected as an eye-witness. He,
however, did not support the prosecution version. His evidence indicates
that he did not see the accused persons quarreling with Sandip and Pankaj.
The aforesaid discrepancy, coupled with the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged
after four and a half months and that too without any justification, renders
the prosecution version doubtful. The view taken by the trial Court appears
to us to be a possible view.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal is
filed by the victims and, therefore, should be admitted. According to him,
since the victims have a right to file an appeal, the same should be admitted
for final hearing.
11. We are not convinced with the said argument. Right to file an
appeal is one thing and to find substance in the appeal for admission is
another. Unless, a case is made out for detail hearing, the provision of right
to file appeal cannot be taken aid of to argue that the appeal will have to be
admitted as of right. Even if the appeal is filed by the victims against a
judgment of acquittal, he or she will have to make out a case for admission
by pointing out that the findings of the trial Court are apparently erroneous.
Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Manikrao vs. Vasantrao Vishwasrao Charjan and
others, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3655.
12. Considering the above position of law and since the trial Court
has considered all the attending circumstances while acquitting the accused-
respondents, we are not inclined to admit the appeal. There is no merit in
the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2026 14:41:50
