Bombay HC Upholds Murder Conviction in Circumstantial Evidence Case, Citing Accused's Failure to Explain Partner's Disappearance under S.106 Evidence Act - 2025-01-06

Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence, Acquits Co-Accused Wife and Brother-in-Law

Aurangabad, Maharashtra - The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has upheld the life imprisonment sentence for Prakash Suryakant Chapekar for the murder of his live-in partner, Kanchan Pardeshi, in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence. A division bench of Justices R.G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote ruled that Chapekar’s failure to explain Kanchan's disappearance and death, when she was last known to be with him, was a critical link in the chain of evidence pointing to his guilt.

However, the Court acquitted Chapekar's wife, Pratibha Chapekar, and brother-in-law, Datta Lohar, who were also convicted for murder and criminal conspiracy by the trial court. The bench found the evidence against them insufficient to prove their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Background of the Case: An Affair Turned Fatal

The prosecution's case dates back to December 2015, when the body of a young woman, later identified as Kanchan Pardeshi, was found stuffed in a gunny bag in a public well in Wagholi village, Osmanabad. The investigation revealed a tragic story of a workplace affair with a fatal conclusion.

Prakash Chapekar and Kanchan Pardeshi were colleagues at Blue Dart in Pune, where Prakash was her boss. Their professional relationship evolved into an intimate one. Despite efforts by Kanchan's family to separate them, the two continued their relationship.

Eventually, Prakash took a job in Nagpur, and Kanchan soon followed, leaving her family behind. They began living together as husband and wife. The situation unraveled when Prakash’s legally wedded wife, Pratibha, visited Nagpur, revealing the affair to his friends and colleagues.

The prosecution alleged that to end the relationship, Prakash, along with his wife Pratibha and her brother Datta, conspired to murder Kanchan. On the intervening night of December 20-21, 2015, Prakash and Datta allegedly murdered Kanchan, bundled her body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in the well.

In August 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, convicted all three accused for murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

---

Appellants' Arguments: Gaps in the Evidentiary Chain

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with missing links. They contended that:

- The trial court had erroneously relied on inadmissible evidence, such as disclosure statements that led to no recovery of objects.

- Key witnesses from Nagpur who testified about Prakash living with a woman named 'Kanchan' were never shown a photograph to confirm her identity as the deceased.

- There was no evidence of Prakash and Kanchan being "last seen together" before the murder.

- The Call Detail Records (CDRs) were insufficient to prove guilt, and the case was based on conjecture.

---

High Court's Reasoning: The Unexplained Circumstances

The High Court meticulously analyzed the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The bench found several circumstances to be "fully established":

- Homicidal Death: The post-mortem report confirmed Kanchan died of a "hemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury," establishing it as a murder.

- Intimate Relationship: The testimony of Kanchan's parents and uncle proved the deep emotional involvement between Prakash and Kanchan.

- Living Together: Evidence from Prakash's colleagues and landlord in Nagpur confirmed he was living with a woman named Kanchan, who the court inferred was the deceased.

- The "Jaipur Kurti": In a crucial breakthrough, the investigating officer traced a "Jaipur Kurti" worn by the deceased to an online purchase made from Flipkart. The order was linked to a mobile number provided to Prakash by his employer and delivered to his Nagpur address.

- Suspicious Conduct: After the murder, Prakash gave a false explanation to a car mechanic about bloodstains in his car, claiming his wife was injured in a dacoity attempt. He also told a colleague that Kanchan had gone to her village.

- CDR Evidence: Mobile tower locations showed Prakash’s phone traveling from Nagpur to the vicinity of the crime scene around the time of the murder and returning the next day.

The court emphasized that Prakash, being the person with whom Kanchan was living, had a duty to explain what happened to her.

"In view of the above facts, we reached to the conclusion that it was the appellant Prakash who owe explanation as to what he did with Kanchan, who was staying with him as his wife. It is reiterated that he offered no explanation to any of the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The only conclusion, therefore, could be drawn that the appellant Prakash committed murder of Kanchan."

---

Acquittal of Co-Accused: Conspiracy Not Proven

While upholding Prakash’s conviction, the court acquitted his wife Pratibha and brother-in-law Datta. The bench observed that mere telephonic conversations between family members, even one at an odd hour, were insufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy.

"It is very easy to allege a case of conspiracy but difficult to prove the same. Mere telephonic conversations between appellant Pratibha and her husband appellant - Prakash and brother appellant - Datta, no way lead us to conclude she (appellant Pratibha) to have had hatched conspiracy to eliminate Kanchan."

Similarly, the court found the evidence against Datta, primarily based on an inadmissible disclosure statement, "grossly insufficient" to hold him guilty.

---

Final Verdict

The High Court dismissed Prakash Chapekar's appeal, confirming his conviction and life sentence for murder. The appeals of Datta Lohar and Pratibha Chapekar were allowed, and they were acquitted of all charges.

Following the pronouncement, the court granted Prakash Chapekar four weeks to surrender, allowing him time to approach the Supreme Court.