Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
Vishal Ganesh Kasabe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1745 OF 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2026
Key Points: - The court held that prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, which was not met. [p_?] - Conviction under IPC 302 read with 34 acquitted due to inconsistent witness testimony and lack of proven motive; reliance on circumstantial evidence insufficient. (!) (!) (!) - Appeal allowed; judgment and order convicting under 302/34 quashed; appellant acquitted and to be released. (!) (!) - First Information Report did not name the appellant; subsequent supplementary statement disclosed appellant’s involvement. (!) (!) - Key witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 had inconsistencies; certain hostsilities and 164 CrPC statements questioned. (!) (!) (!) - Medical and recovery evidence (blood-stained clothes) deemed insufficient alone to sustain conviction. (!) (!) - Case relies on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles for caution in circumstantial evidence. (!) - Appellant’s clothes and seizure details: discrepancies noted between seized articles and witnesses. (!) (!) - Outcome: acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC; entitlement to release if not required in other cases. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of charge and conviction against appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. list of prosecution witnesses relevant for the case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. assessment of evidence on jitendra's death. (Para 7) |
| 4. arguments presented by appellant and prosecution. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding incident. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. testimony of deceased's mother and its hearsay nature. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's critical analysis of key evidence presented. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. evaluation of circumstantial evidence supporting prosecution. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. legal principles governing circumstantial evidence. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 10. conclusion reversing conviction and acquitting appellant. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandesh D. Patil, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 23rd October 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in proceeding bearing Session Case No. 751 of 2013, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only). The appellant was however acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 120 B of the IPC.
2. The present Appellant is Original Accused No.2 (Vishal Ganesh Kasabe). By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant, as well as Lallya @ Vishal Ravindra Dadar (Original Accused No.1), were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302, read with 34 of the IPC. Both, the Appellant as well as Lallya @ Vishal Ravindra Dadar (hereinafter referred to as Accused No. 1) have preferred separate appeals against the impugned Judgment and Order before this Court. By a separate order dated 26th November 2025, we have de-tagged the appeal of the accused No.1, Lallya @ Vishal Ravindra Dadar, since the said accused is absconding. Accordingly, the said appeal bearing No. 1725 of 2019 preferred by Lallya @ Vishal Ravindra Dadar is adjourned sine die.
PROSECUTION CASE :
3. It is the prosecution case, that on 2nd June, 2013,while returning home, Jitendra was assaulted by accused No.1 – Lallya, and others, including the appellant ; that Jitendra on way to the Hospital disclosed the names of the assailants to PW 3 Laxmi Gaikwad and PW 4 Deepak Kamble, who in turn informed the incident to Rajan (Jitendra’s brother). On learning of the incident, Rajan Gaikwad lodged an FIR as against Lallya Dadar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant was named by the complainant in his supplementary statement. During the course of investigation the appellant was arrested. After investigation police filed chargesheet against accused including the appellant in the Court of the learned JMFC, Pune. Since the offence under Section 302 of IPC was triable by the Sessions Court, the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions, Pune, for trial.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Pune, framed charge against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, accused Nos. 3 and 4 expired. Hence, the trial proceeded only against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5. As far as accused No.5 is concerned, he was acquitted by the Learned Sessions Judge.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the following witnesses:-
| 9 | Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. – Dattram Angre |
| 10 | Nodal Officer of Reliance Co. – Rajesh Gaikwad |
| 11 | PI - Shivaji Berde (conducted further investigation and filed chargesheet) |
| 12 | PI – Madhukar Salunke (conducted preliminary investigation) |
6. Although, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of all the witnesses. The only witnesses who are relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal against the appellant are PW-1, Rajan Gaikwad, who is the brother of the deceased and
The court held that in criminal cases, especially those relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Point if Law: Merely because appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with judgment of acquittal is not justified if vie....
The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and complete chain of proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely conjecture.
Court overturned murder conviction citing doubts about witness credibility, lack of corroborating evidence, and reliance on confession without independent corroboration.
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....
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
