2025:BHC-AUG:13903-DB (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.169 OF 2021 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2025 Pundlik Govind Kale, Age: 27 years, Occ.: Labour, Resident of Pandharkur (Kamroddinpur), Tal.: Deoni, Dist. Latur (Maharashtra) ….APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Investigating Officer, (C.R.No.224/2018), Chakur Police Station, District: Latur ….RESPONDENT ….

Mr Abhaykumar D. Ostwal, Advocate for appellant Mrs S. N. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent/State CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.

Reserved on : 13th March, 2025 Pronounced on : 9th May, 2025 JUDGMENT : (PER: Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

1. Heard Advocate Mr Abhaykumar Otswal for the appellant and Ms S. N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction and consequential sentence passed by the Court of the (2)

Additional Sessions Judge-5 at Latur, District Latur in Sessions Case No.58/2018 on 21/01/2021. Vide impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

3. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction on several grounds elaborately stated in the memorandum of appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, primarily contending that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Main thrust of the arguments of the appellant is that the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be considered as trustworthy so as to conclusively arrive at a decision of guilt of the accused on the basis of the their evidence. The appellant’s contention is that the entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-3 and in view of the ample evidence on record, it is submitted that they are planted witnesses. The appellant, therefore, submits that, ignoring the evidence of the two planted eyewitnesses, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is assailed.

(3)

4. The prosecution case in the instant matter can be briefly stated thus :-

Vijaykumar Bhimrao Nandgave (PW-1), the informant is the real younger brother of deceased Venkat Nandgave. Elder daughter of deceased Venkat by name Janabai had been married to accused three years prior to the incident. On the day of incidence i.e. on 15/07/2018, at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased Venkat left village Rachannawadi and he reached at Bothi Chowk, Chakur at around 8:30 p.m. for boarding a bus which would carry him to his village Rachannawadi which was about 11 kms. away. On the same day, at evening time, Shivaji Devidas Wagalgave (PW-2) and Vikram Sambhaji Wagalgave (PW-3), both residents of Rachannawadi had also come at Chakur at about 6.00 p.m. by S.T. bus from their village for purchasing insecticides. They were together and had purchased insecticides and then at about 7:30 p.m., Shivaji and Vikram came to Bothi Chowk in order to catch a vehicle to reach Rachannawadi. At that time, Shivaji and Vikram met deceased Venkat at Bothi Chowk. All three were chitchatting and at that time, accused Pundlik Govind Kale (son-in-law of deceased Venkat) came there on one two wheeler- Scooty. Some conversation started between accused and Venkat.

(4)

Shivaji and Vikram stood at some distance observing that Venkat and accused Pundlik had engaged in some personal discussion. When Venkat and accused were talking with each other at around 8:45 p.m., some quarrel started between them and suddenly, accused Pundlik took out one Koyata/Sickle (sugarcane cutting instrument) from the dicky of his Scooty and started assaulting Venkat by the same. Initially, Venkat saved himself by forwarding his left hand. The first blow injured left hand of Venkat. Immediately thereafter, accused Pundli