Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Naresh Prabhubhai Golani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 117, 643 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. trial court's judgment overview. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. defense arguments on circumstantial evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal precedence on identification procedures. (Para 17 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. emphasis on prosecution's burden of proof. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 28) |
| 6. prosecution's argument on collection of evidence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 7. consideration of circumstantial evidence principles. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. evidence related to the last seen together theory. (Para 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. issues surrounding witness identification credibility. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. validity of the last seen evidence discussed. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 11. challenges to the prosecution's timeline of events. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 12. cctv footage evidence scrutiny. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 13. implications of unproduced evidence. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 14. crucial gaps in established motive discussed. (Para 59 , 60) |
| 15. challenges to recovery evidence credibility. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 16. medical evidence analyzed in circumstantial cases. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 17. conclusion on case and final orders. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH PITALE, J.
1. These two appeals challenge judgement and order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Court of Sessions at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.253 of 2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 397, 364, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for periods ranging from 7 years to imprisonment for life along with payment of fine amounts.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Hardik Mordiya was working as a delivery boy for the first informant - Parth Mehta and his father - Mukesh Mehta, who were in the business of sale of diamonds, operating from Opera House at Mumbai. On 17.11.2011, in the evening at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased was given four packets containing diamonds to be delivered at various shops at Opera House Diamond Market. Since the deceased did not reach his house till late in the evening, at about 10:30 p.m., the brother of the deceased i.e. Bipin Mordiya (P.W.14) informed the first informant - Parth Mehta (P.W.1). Since the first informant (P.W.1) could not find the deceased in the area around Opera House, he lodged a missing person report with D. B. Marg Police Station.
3. On the next day i.e. 18.11.2011, the first informant (P.W.1) and his father made enquiries with diamond merchants to whom the diamonds had been sent about having received the diamonds. One such diamond merchant informed that a packet containing diamonds weighing 725.52 carats had not been received. At this stage, the first informant (P.W.1) informed the police at D. B. Marg Police Station, in writing, that the deceased had been abducted for the said diamonds.
4. During the period when a search was being made for the deceased, on 19.11.2011, at about 11:00 a.m., the first informant (P.W.1) received a phone call from Panchgani Police Station, District Satara about a dead body having been found. An identity card found on the body led the police to the first informant (P.W.1). Accordingly, P.W.1 and Bipin Mordiya went to Panchgani and identified the dead body as that of Hardik Mordiya. The body of the deceased had injuries at various places, with deep cut mark on the neck and nylon rope was also found around the neck. A zero FIR was registered in Panchgani Police Station and subsequently, it was transferred to D. B. Marg Police Station and on this basis, offences were registered under the aforementioned provisions vide FIR bearing No.317 of 2011.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that call detail records (CDRs) of the mobile used by the deceased Hardik Mordiya revealed that various phone calls were received from a particular number, which the investigating authorities
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must connect all links beyond reasonable doubt and that possession of stolen items without explanation infers guilt.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete chain excluding innocence; long time gap invalidates last seen theory without ruling out third-party intervention; open-place recoveries lack credibility; un....
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
