2026 Supreme(Bom) 239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Shrikant Kamal Chavan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2026

Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive analysis.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Conviction and life imprisonment upheld in appeal - Delay in FIR registration and inquest panchnama under Section 174 CrPC before FIR not fatal where no prejudice to accused, explained by shock, trauma of informant handling minor children after gruesome murder, and prompt preliminary steps justified immediate action like body removal for postmortem (Paras 22-28).

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Statement of accused - Adequately recorded by putting incriminating circumstances enabling explanation; no prejudice if intelligible questions answered (Para 37).

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 8 - Absconding relevant conduct pointing to guilt, especially higher responsibility on husband as protector; unexplained absence post-incident incriminatory (Paras 29-31).

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 11 - Plea of alibi - Burden on accused to prove by cogent evidence excluding presence at scene; mere assertion in Section 313 statement insufficient (Paras 32-34). (E) Prosecution evidence - Quality over quantity of witnesses; prerogative of prosecution to select relevant ones; not necessary to examine all whose statements recorded absent prejudice (Para 36). (F) Interested witness - Natural witness like mother of deceased reliable if testimony consistent, unshaken in cross-examination, natural without embellishment, and corroborated by medical evidence and scene panchnama; no motive for false implication (Paras 38-41). (G) Motive - Proved by history of quarrels due to liquor addiction and character suspicion, culminating in fatal assault (Para 42). (H) Chemical analysis - Inconclusive blood on accused's shirt not fatal where direct eyewitness, weapon recovery at scene, and medical linkage to injury reliable (Para 43). (I) Cited precedents - Distinguished on facts where circumstantial gaps, contradictions, or investigative taints absent here; direct evidence coherent (Paras 44).

Facts of the case:
Accused husband inflicted axe blow on wife's neck during night quarrel after consuming liquor, suspecting her character; mother awoke to children crying, saw accused fleeing, discovered body on blood-stained sheet with axe nearby; accused absconded to native place, arrested days later; unsubstantiated alibi of being at work; FIR delayed about 10 hours post-midnight incident.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt via reliable eyewitness seeing flight, medical opinion on fatal chop injury caused by axe within 24 hours, blood-stained articles at scene, motive, and conduct.

Issues: Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest vitiating trial; false implication by interested witness; absconding and alibi effects; adequacy of witnesses examined; Section 313 compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Eyewitness inspires confidence, corroborated by doctor identifying axe-capable injury, panch spotting bloodied axe/shirt/sheet, IOs detailing scene; delay condoned sans concoction evidence; no prejudice from procedural sequence; quality evidence suffices.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence confirmed.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges section 302 conviction for wife's murder (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defence alleges fir delay, false implication, alibi (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. eyewitness mother saw accused flee post-attack (Para 11 , 12)
4. panch confirms bloodstained axe and sheet seizure (Para 13 , 14)
5. postmortem confirms fatal axe-induced neck injury (Para 15 , 16)
6. investigation details spot visit, recovery, arrest (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. pre-fir inquest not fatal to prosecution (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
8. fir delay condoned absent concoction motive (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
9. abscondence relevant evidence of guilt (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
10. alibi requires cogent substantiating evidence (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
11. evidence quality prioritised over quantity (Para 35 , 36)
12. section 313 statement adequately recorded (Para 37)
13. interested natural witnesses reliable if credible (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
14. motive via liquor addiction suspicion proved (Para 42)
15. inconclusive ca report not disproving eyewitness (Para 43)
16. defence precedents distinguishable on facts (Para 44)
17. prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Para 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the Impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:

a. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.04.2019, at about 11.29 am, Complainant Tarabai Jaywant Rathod lodged a complaint at Wanawadi Police Station stating that she was residing at Wadkar Mala, Laxmi Park, Mohammedwadi, Hadapsar, Pune, along with her husband Jaywant, son Uttam and daughter Pallavi. Her elder daughter Sangita Shrikant Chavan was residing since 29.03.2019 in a temporary hut erected in an open space, along with her husband Shrikant Kamal Chavan (the accused) and their two minor children. It is further the case that the complainant and her family members were working as labourers and were residing in temporary huts. It is further the case that Sangita had married the accused about five years prior to the incident and they had two children, Kartik aged about three years and Aniket aged about one and a half years. It is further the case that the accused was addicted to liquor and frequently suspected Sangita’s character, resulting in quarrels between them. It is further the case that on 31.03.2019 at about 8:00 p.m. a quarrel ensued between the accused and Sangita, which the complainant overheard from her adjacent hut. It is further the case that after dinner, the accused and Sangita slept in the open space beside their hut on a plastic sheet and the quarrel allegedly continued until about 11:30 p.m., after which the complainant went to sleep. It is further the case that the complainant woke up on hearing her grandson crying and therefore she went to the place where they were sleeping. She saw the accused running away and found Sangita lying on her stomach on a plastic sheet with blood oozing from below her left ear. It is further the case that despite attempts being made to rouse her, Sangita did not respond and therefore the complainant raised an alarm. It is further the case that she noticed a wooden log and an iron axe lying nearby. She thereafter reported that the accused had murdered Sangita and fled from the scene. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 219 of 2019 was registered on 01.04.2019 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Appellant-Accused was arrested on 04.04.2019 from Vijapur. Karnataka. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed on 27.06.2019 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, for the offence punishable un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document