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 intervention and inconclusive recoveries.

JUDGMENT :

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune Dist. in Sessions Case no. 823/2016 whereby the Appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution’s case are as under:

a. On 26.05.2016, at about 10.30 p.m., the informant (mother of deceased Suraj @ Bablu) observed that her son’s mobile phone was ringing. Upon answering the call, the caller had disclosed his name as Prakash. Thereafter, Suraj woke up and called him back. After some time, both the Accused, Prakash Bhosale and Subhash Kengar, arrived at the house of Suraj on motorcycle and took away the deceased Suraj on their motorcycle at about 11 p.m.

b. On 27.05.2016, at about 04.00 a.m., person named Gaikwad, accompanied by police personnel, came to the house of the mother of the deceased and informed her that one boy is lying in injured condition near Renuka Mata Temple, Keshav Nagar, Mundhwa, at Amrai. The mother identified him to be her son who was lying in a pool of blood in an injured condition with injuries on his face and head.

c. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 108/2016 came to be registered with Mundhwa Police Station, Pune, for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present Appellant and Subash Kengar.

d. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. The post-mortem was performed by Dr. Amol Shinde, which disclosed that the deceased died due to a crush injury to the head with blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen. The present Appellant and the other Accused came to be arrested on 27.05.2016.

3. Charges were framed under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present Accused-Appellant and co-Accused Subash Kengar to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 16). No defence evidence was led.

5. After hearing the arguments of prosecution and defence, vide order dated 18.12.2019, the Sessions Court was pleased to convict the Accused- Appellant under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 823/2016, dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune Dist., the Appellant has approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Appeal.

7. The co-Accused had also preferred the Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.1061 of 2021 challenging the conviction. The Appeal was admitted. However, during the pendency of the Appeal, the co-Accused expired and therefore his Appeal stood abated. This Court vide order dated 12^th February 2025 recorded the said fact.

8. We have heard Mr. Priyal Sarda, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

9. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submi