Case Note & Summary
The appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 14.2.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 219/2011, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms for the murder of Dinesh Shendekar and related unlawful assembly offences. Background: The prosecution case was that on 17.1.2011, a quarrel over money took place between Guddu Shendekar (brother of the deceased) and accused Rajesh Kuhikar. Two days later, on 19.1.2011 at about 9:30 p.m., the informant Deva Shendekar (brother of the deceased) was standing in front of his house when the accused persons, armed with swords, came there and broke a window glass, declaring that they had killed his brother. He rushed to Rajgire Lane and found Dinesh lying dead in a pool of blood with sword injuries on his abdomen, throat, fingers, and hands. Amol Kumbhalkar was also injured and stated that the accused had killed the deceased and assaulted him when he intervened. The police were informed, and an FIR was registered. During investigation, the police drew spot and inquest panchanamas, seized clothes of the deceased and accused, arrested the accused, and recovered weapons at the instance of accused Mahesh Devgune and Santosh Kuhikar based on their memorandum statements. The weapons were sent for forensic analysis, and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The trial court, after examining 14 witnesses and considering documentary evidence, convicted all the accused. The material witnesses included Deva Shendekar (PW1, informant), Tarachand Aherwar (PW2, pancha for memorandum and discovery), Amol Kumbhalkar (PW4, injured eyewitness), Dhnyaneshwar Dhapekar (PW5, eyewitness), Suman Devgune (PW6, eyewitness), and the investigating officers. In the appeals, the appellants challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the prosecution case hinged on circumstantial evidence and the two key eyewitnesses, PW5 and PW6, were already disbelieved by the trial court because their statements were recorded belatedly and no explanation was offered by the investigating officer. The defence further contended that the pancha for the memorandum statement and discovery, Tarachand Aherwar (PW2), was the brother-in-law of the informant, and no independent witness was examined despite availability. The recovery of weapons was also challenged on the ground that although they were recovered on 21.1.2011, they were not forwarded to the medical officer until 18.3.2011 and to the chemical analyzer until 21.3.2011. There was no evidence of safe custody during this period or of immediate sealing, and the carrier was not examined. The clothes of the accused were seized belatedly and not immediately upon arrest. Moreover, the FIR was alleged to be fabricated because the police did not register the crime immediately upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. The appellants relied on several Supreme Court decisions to argue that where circumstantial evidence does not form a complete chain unerringly pointing to guilt, conviction cannot be sustained, and procedural lapses in investigation render the prosecution case doubtful. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2014 extensively argued on these lines, pointing out specific gaps in the prosecution evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the trial court’s findings. The court, after hearing the parties, closed the matter on 15.12.2025 and pronounced judgment on 14.01.2026. However, the provided text of the judgment does not contain the court’s analysis and final decision; it ends with the arguments of the appellants.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, given the alleged irregularities in investigation, belated examination of eyewitnesses, and doubtful recoveries
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must unerringly point to guilt
- belated recording of witness statements without explanation affects credibility
- recovery of weapon through memorandum and discovery must be proved by independent evidence
- delay in sending seized articles to chemical analyzer and failure to prove safe custody creates doubt
- link evidence required to ensure no tampering.
