IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
ANIL L. PANSARE, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Jaswantsingh, S/o Udaysingh Chavan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case: mall dispute leads to murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court upholds conviction on evidence. (Para 5) |
| 3. parties argue eye-witness and recovery credibility. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. homicidal death proved by medical evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. chance witnesses reliable if corroborated naturally. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. circumstances form complete guilt chain. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. common intention, conspiracy by coordinated assault. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 8. conviction under 302/34, 120b confirmed. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2016. By the said judgment, the present appellant, original Accused No.3 – Jaswantsingh Udaysingh Chavan, has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Section 120-B of the IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He has also been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Kishor Madanlal Khatri was engaged in property and real estate business and had business dealings with several builders in the city, including Accused No.2 – Ranjitsingh Chungde, resident of Rajputpura, Akola. A mall was under construction on land owned by Accused No.2 behind City Kotwali Police Station, Akola. The deceased had acted as a mediator in the disputes that had arisen among the builders involved in the said construction. An agreement had been entered into between him and the developers of Balaji Mall at Akola for facilitating sale of shops in the said mall.
3. On 03.11.2015 at about 12:00 noon, the deceased had been called to Balaji Mall, by Delhi-based traders Khushwaji and Vikratji. At about 1:00 p.m., the deceased, the said traders and Accused No.2 discussed the proposed date of inauguration of the mall. Thereafter, Accused No.2 went home and returned to the mall in a white Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. MH-30/P-3040. The deceased left the mall along with Accused No.2 in the said vehicle towards Somthana Shivar to see a field. It is further stated that when the deceased did not return, phone calls were made to him. Later in the afternoon, information was received that a dead body was found near Somthana. The body was identified as that of Kishor Khatri.
4. On the basis of the oral report lodged by PW8 – Dilip Khatri, Crime No. 169 of 2015 came to be registered at Old City Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared the spot and inquest panchnamas. Blood-stained soil, simple soil, broken pieces of rope and the mobile phone of the deceased were seized. On the same day, the Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. MH-30/P-3040, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, was found at the farm house of Accused No.2 and was seized along with two firearms and live cartridges. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. Subsequently, the present appellant came to be arrested. At his instance, a knife (Kukari) and certain clothes were seized under memorandum and recovery panchnamas. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded. Call Detail Records were also collected. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be f
Murder conviction upheld on eye-witness testimony of coordinated sharp weapon and firearm assault, corroborated by medical/ballistic evidence and circumstances; weapon recovery under Evidence Act Sec....
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish a consistent and unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime, and any reliance on unreliability of recovery evidence warrants the benef....
Section 120B of the IPC provides as Punishment of criminal conspiracy: Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous impris....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
(1) Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict accused – Last-seen theory comes into play where time-gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last see....
(1) While appreciating evidence in criminal cases, there cannot be a strait-jacket formula. Evidence must be appreciated from perception of a prudent common man.(2) Conduct of a stranger eyewitness t....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, lacking sufficient evidence to prove motive or a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.