Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2018 dated 12.04.2019, convicting the present appellants of offences under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 449, 143, 144, 147, 148 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to various terms including life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 31.10.2017, the informant Shalini Vijay Thool, mother of the deceased Anil, saw four named accused along with others armed with weapons inquiring about her son. She followed them and witnessed the assault on the deceased and injured Premraj near a shop. The deceased ran into the house of Milind Gedam, where the assailants followed and killed him. The police registered the crime, conducted investigation, recovered weapons based on disclosure statements of accused Nos. 2 and 4, and arrested the accused. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 5 (Vaibhav Naik) died, and the appeal abated against him. The appellants challenged the conviction on several grounds: the evidence of eyewitnesses PW-1 (informant) was limited to only four accused and did not cover the incident inside the house; PW-2 (injured) and PW-3 (eyewitness) had their statements recorded belatedly under Section 164 CrPC, casting doubt on their credibility; PW-5 (Milind Gedam) turned hostile; the recovery of weapons from an open place at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 4 was without independent witnesses and the accused were handcuffed, making it unreliable; there was inconsistency between the oral testimony and medical evidence; and there was a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate in violation of Section 157 CrPC. The prosecution argued that the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 was credible and corroborated by medical and scientific evidence, and the discovery of weapons linked the accused to the crime. The High Court heard arguments on 26th September 2025 and pronounced judgment on 13th October 2025, but the excerpt provided does not include the court's analysis or final order, ending with an incomplete sentence.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence available, including the credibility of eyewitnesses, the validity of recoveries, and compliance with procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 168
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2019
Urmila Joshi Phalke, Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ.
R.M. Daga, P.W. Mirza, N.H. Joshi
Rohit S/o Vijay Onkar, Adesh @ Adya S/o Anil Khairkar, Suhas S/o Anil Khairkar, Ashwin @ Gondya Deepak Telang, Roshan @ Kandi S/o Purushottam Pradhan, Anup @ Dadu S/o Anil Ramteke, Sachin @ Batya S/o Ashokrao Bhoyar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and other allied offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought acquittal by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 32/2018.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Anil and the attempted murder of Premraj based on eyewitness accounts and recovery of weapons. They filed the appeal challenging the credibility of the evidence, the legality of the recoveries, and the compliance with procedural requirements.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, vide judgment dated 12.04.2019 in Sessions Trial No. 32/2018, convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 449, 143, 144, 147, 148 read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment including life imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 is reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction given the alleged inconsistencies, limited identification of assailants, and the delayed recording of statements under Section 164 CrPC.
Whether the recovery of weapons at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 4 from an open place, without independent witnesses and while the accused were handcuffed, is admissible and sufficient to corroborate the prosecution case.
Whether the non-compliance with Section 157 CrPC regarding the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate vitiates the trial and casts doubt on the prosecution version.
Whether the conviction can be sustained when a key witness (PW-5 Milind Gedam) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution regarding the identity of the assailants inside his house.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that PW-1 (the informant) implicated only four named accused and three unknown persons, and she did not witness the fatal assault inside the house of Milind Gedam, thus her evidence is insufficient to prove the entire prosecution case.
The statements of PW-2 (injured eyewitness) and PW-3 (eyewitness) under Section 164 CrPC were recorded belatedly without proper explanation, making their testimonies unreliable and potentially tutored.
PW-5 Milind Gedam, the owner of the house where the deceased was killed, turned hostile and did not identify the assailants, thereby weakening the prosecution case.
The recovery of weapons at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 4 was from an open place accessible to all, and no independent witness was examined; further, the discovery panchnama was conducted when the accused were handcuffed, rendering the recovery doubtful and inadmissible.
There were material inconsistencies between the oral evidence of the witnesses and the medical evidence, particularly regarding the history of assault narrated to the doctor, which did not mention the names of the assailants.
There was a delay in sending the FIR to the court, which violates Section 157 CrPC and creates a suspicion about the genesis of the prosecution case.
The prosecution argued that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 are consistent eyewitnesses whose testimony is corroborated by medical evidence that confirms the cause of death and injuries.
The discovery of weapons based on the memorandum statements of the accused, along with the CA reports showing the presence of blood, connects the accused to the crime scientifically.
Even though PW-5 turned hostile, his evidence confirms that the incident occurred inside his house, supporting the prosecution narrative.
Judgment Excerpts
All the incriminating evidence is put to the accused persons to obtain their explanation regarding evidence appearing against them by recording their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The defence of the accused persons is of total denial and of a false implication.
Thus, the entire evidence of the prosecution casts doubt on the prosecution case.
There is inconsistency between the oral and medical evidence.
Thus, there is non-compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
On 31.10.2017, the informant Shalini Vijay Thool lodged a report leading to the registration of a crime. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, framed charges and conducted the trial, ultimately convicting the appellants on 12.04.2019. The appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2019 before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 5 (Vaibhav Naik) died, and the appeal abated against him. The High Court heard arguments on 26th September 2025 and pronounced judgment on 13th October 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 120-B, 449, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313, 157, 164
