Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Shreekant Yallappa Doifode and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 with Interim Application No.4354 of 2023 with Interim Application No.4359 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015
Decided on 10.6.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants in Appeal/780/2014: Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary a/w. Anush Shetty
For the Informant in Appeal/780/2014: Mr. Himanshu J. Patil i/b. Alisha Mohite
For the Appellant/State in Appeal/132/2015: Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni, APP
For the State/Respondent in Appeal/780/2014: Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni, APP
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained when investigation is not fair.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 read with Section 100 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Prosecution witnesses made feeble attempt to get over lacuna of non-explanation of injuries to accused by introducing theory of fall of accused on a heap of stones – Spot Panchanama does not show presence of any heap of stones at all – In any case, it is most unlikely that injuries suffered by two persons from accused’ group could have been caused due to fall on a heap of stone – Child in conflict with law had lost tip of her finger through a sharp weapon; that has nothing to do with fall on a heap of stones – Theory of fall of accused on stones is introduced by prosecution witnesses for first time during their deposition before Court – They had not mentioned so in their police statements – Prosecution witnesses and, in particular, eye witnesses have deliberately suppressed genesis of incident – True occurrence of incident is not brought before Court – Evidence of eye witnesses is doubtful and prosecution has not crossed threshold of reasonable doubt to enable court to reach a conclusion of guilt of accused – Recovery of weapon at instance of accused persons was from a place which was accessible to all – C.A. report did not conclusively show that blood found on weapon was that of deceased – These are weak pieces of evidence on which it is unsafe to rely to reach satisfaction that accused had committed this offence – I.O. had not bothered to produce injury certificates of accused till he was compelled to do so during his cross-examination – All this shows that investigation was not fair – Conviction and sentence partly affirmed. (Paras 40, 43, 44, 46, 47 and 48)
Result: Criminal Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.—Both these Appeals are decided by this common Judgment because they arise out of the same Judgment and order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.124 of 2011. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 were convicted and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015 were acquitted. The convicted accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence and the State of Maharashtra has preferred Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015 against the acquittal of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 and the Respondents in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015 are referred to either by their names or by their status as particular accused in the said sessions case. The original accused were as follows:-
i) Accused No.1 Shreekant Yallappa Doifode
ii) Accused No.2 Pravin Yallappa Doifode
iii) Accused No. 3 Shankar Akaram Doifode
iv) Accused No.4 Jayashree Shrikant Doifode
v) Accused No.5 Varsha Pravin Doifode
vi) Accused No.6 Madhuri Akaram Doifode
There was one more accused who was a child in conflict with law. She was separately tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 and she was acquitted under that procedure.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused Nos.1 to 6 were acquitted from the charges of commission of offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the I.P.C. The Accused Nos.4 to 6 were acquitted from the charges of commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C.
3. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer further S.I. for one month. The convicted accused were given set off for the period they had spent in custody as under-trial prisoners.
4. Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Applicants in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014, Mr. Himanshu Patil, learned counsel for the Informant in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014, Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, learned APP for the State/Respondent in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 and for the Appellant/State in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary also represented the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (the original accused Nos.4, 5 and 6) in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015.
5. The prosecution case is that, one Sandip Doifode had an agricultural land near village Ghunki, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. For a few years, his land was given for cultivation to the accused who were his relatives. After a few years, he came back to his village and started cultivating his own land. Therefore, the accused and their families were holding a grudge against Sandip. There was one more incident after the local election, wherein, there was some quarrel between Sandip on one hand and the accused on the other. The incident in the present case took place on 05.07.2011 at around 6:30p.m. It is alleged that the accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 along with the child in conflict with law threw chilly powder in Sandip’s eyes. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him with weapons like sickle and choppers. There were two blows on his head and one on his chest. Sandip’s friend took him to the hospital but he was declared dead. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged at Vadgaon police station vide the C.R.No.79 of 2011 under sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. at 9:20p.m. on 05.07.2011 by one Anil Doifode. There was a cross complaint lodged by the accused’ group against Sandip’s group vide C.R.No.80 of 2011 at the same police station; mainly under section 307 of the I.P.C. for causing grievous injuries to accused No.2 Pravin. The investigation was conducted separately in both these registered offences. Two separa
