Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6639

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ
Pradeep @ Shappu Janardhan Kokate – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2017|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kuldip Kahalekar, Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Mr. Ajeet Manwani, Mr. Swapnil Telang
For the Respondents: Mr. S. R. Wakale

Establishing guilt in conspiracy requires clear evidence of coordinated action; mere suspicion does not suffice to prove involvement of a party in a crime.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120-B, 387, 201; Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3 and 5 - Homicide - Conviction of two accused for murder, extortion, and conspiracy; appellants argued prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and reliability of evidence. (Paras 64-79).

(B) The court emphasized the necessity for each circumstantial evidence piece to independently point to guilt, establishing that each aspect was critical in proving involvement in the crime. (Paras 54-57).

Facts of the case:
Two accused petitioners were convicted for the murder of a man following alleged ransom demands and prior illicit relations, while defense raised doubts regarding evidence authentication and the credibility of witnesses. (Paras 1-4).

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's case presented substantial electronic evidence linking the first appellant to the crime scene; however, it lacked effectiveness in implicating the second appellant in conspiracy. (Paras 65-79).

Issues: Whether the appellants conspired to commit murder and the reliability of evidence affirming that conspiracy. (Paras 66-70).

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity for a clear connection in conspiracy cases and determined the second appellant's lack of proven involvement meriting acquittal. (Paras 72-79).

Result: Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2017 dismissed; Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2017 allowed, acquitting the second appellant.

Table of Content
1. arguments by the appellant divya. (Para 13 , 14)
2. court's observations on evidence presented. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
3. court analysis of circumstantial evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. details on electronic evidence and witness testimony. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. court's analysis of mobile phone evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. analysis of forensic evidence related to firearms. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
7. impact of ballistic evidence on the case. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
8. witnesses' identification and credibility. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
9. conclusions regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 53 , 54 , 55)
10. summary of key forensic findings. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
11. result of prosecution’s case against pradeep. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
12. discussion on conspiracy and relationships. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
13. assessment of divya's involvement in conspiracy. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
14. legal principles regarding conspiracy evidence. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
15. final order regarding both appellants. (Para 78)

RESERVED ON : 3^rd JULY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J):-

1. Both the appellants, namely, Pradeep @ Shappu Janardhan Kokate in Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2017 and Divya @ Hema Jitendra Bhatiya in Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2017 are the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 240 of 2014, respectively. Both of them have challenged the judgment and order dated 17.06.2017 passed in the aforesaid Sessions case, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Judge’). To avoid ambiguity, both the appellants are referred by their first names. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant Pradeep is convicted as follows :-

Sr.No.	Under IPC Section	Sentence
01.	302	Imprisonment for Life and to pay ﬁne of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of ﬁne, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
02.	120-B	Imprisonment for life and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of ﬁne, he shall undergo R.I. for four months.

03.	387	Rigorous Imprisonment for ﬁve years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of ﬁne, he shall undergo R.I. for three months
04.	Section 3 of Arms Act, 1959	Rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of ﬁne, he shall undergo R.I. for three months.
05.	Section 5 of Arms Act, 1959	Rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of ﬁne, he shall undergo R.I. for three months.

2. Whereas the appellant Divya is convicted as under :-

Sr.No.	Under IPC Section	Sentence
01.	120-B	Imprisonment for life and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 5000/-.In default of payment of ﬁne, she shall undergo R.I. for four months.
02.	201	Imprisonment for three years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of ﬁne, she shall undergo R.I. for two months.

3. It is significant to note that in the aforesaid Sessions Case, there was one another accused i.e. accused No.3 Vikram @ Gotya Kishor Berad, who was convicted only for the offence under Section 5 read with 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months.

4. The third accused had also filed a separate appeal for challenging his conviction under the impugned judgment, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2017. However, during the pendency of said appeal, the appellant Vikram expired on 26.06.2023, and therefore, this Court, vide order dated 22.08.2023, disposed of his appeal as criminal proceeding against him stood abated. Since both the appellants Pradeep and Divya have challenged one and the same judgment whereby they are convicted, we would like to consider both the appeals together as the evidence for both of them is common.

5. The facts of the prosecution case, in a nut she

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6639

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYNITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJPradeep @ Shappu Janardhan Kokate – AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2017|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2017

Establishing guilt in conspiracy requires clear evidence of coordinated action; mere suspicion does not suffice to prove involvement of a party in a crime.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ
Pradeep @ Shappu Janardhan Kokate – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2017|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2017