APEAL/242/2026 of SITARAM KACHARU ZINGARE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PSO RISOD AND ANR on 5 November 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2026 APPELLANT : Sitaram s/o. Kacharu Zingare, Age – 73 Years, Occu. - Labour, R/o. Kavatha, Tahsil, - Risod, District – Washim. //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through PSO Risod, District – Washim.

2. Madhukar s/o. Kisan Manmothe, Age – 45 Years, Occu. - Labour, R/o. Pedgaon Road, Village – Kavatha, Tahsil – Risod, Dist. - Washim. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Amol M. Jaltare, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mrs. Kirti Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2. __________________________________________________________ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 1 st SEPTEMBER

, 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON : 5 th NOVEMBER, 2026

. JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) Heard Mr. Amol Jaltare, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, learned APP for respondent No. 1/State, and Mrs. Kirti Deshpande, learned counsel appointed for respondent No. 2. 2026:BHC-NAG:15215-DB

2. The appellant has approached this Court seeking challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2025. The appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The learned Sessions Court, after conducting the trial, convicted the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned Sessions Court further convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 238 of the BNS, 2023, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 64(1) of the BNS, 2023, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: The informant, Madhukar Kisan Manmothe (PW1), lodged a report against the present appellant alleging that his mother, Jankabai, had advanced a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- to the accused. On 17.08.2024, at about 08:00 a.m. to 08:30 a.m., the appellant came to his house and asked his mother to prepare tea for him. Jankabai informed him that milk was not available. Therefore, the appellant was asked to bring milk. The mother of the informant gave Rs.20/- to the appellant along with a pot for bringing the milk. The appellant left the place and did not return. Thereafter, at about 10:00 a.m., the mother of the informant went to the appellant’s house to demand repayment of the hand loan, but she did not return thereafter.

4. On 18.08.2024, at about 04:00 p.m., the son of the informant informed him over the phone that his friend had informed him that the dead body of his grandmother, Jankabai, was lying in a lane near the appellant’s house and that there were marks of assault on her person. Upon receiving such information, the informant went to the spot and found his mother lying dead in the lane. He noticed marks of assault on her face, eyes and head. Therefore, the informant lodged a report with respondent No. 1. On the basis of the report lodged by the informant, Crime No. 392 of 2024 came to be registered against the present appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS, 2023.

5. The investigation was set into motion. The Investigating Officer prepared the spot panchnama and seizure panchnama and arrested the present appellant. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed by respondent No. 1. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Initially, the charge was framed against the appellant at Exhibit 07 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS, 2023. Subsequently, an additional charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 64(1) of the BNS, 2023, vide Exhibit 52. All the charges were read over and explained to the appellant in vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. After completion of the evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, vide Exhibit 94. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire record and evidence, convicted the present appellant for the aforesaid offences and imposed the sentences as described hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

7. Mr. Amol Jaltare, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Sessions Court committed an error of law in convicting the present appellant by ignoring the material evidence on record. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. He further submitted that the scientific examination reports produced on record did not support the prosecution case. The conviction, which was based on circumstantial evidence, fell short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He also submitted that the evidence of the doctor (PW6) raised serious doubts about the prosecution case.

8. Ms. Jaipurkar, learned APP, supported the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court and submitted that the appellant had committed the rape and brutal murder of deceased Jankabai, who was the mother of the informant. She, therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Court was justified in convicting the present appellant and imposing the sentences as mentioned hereinabove.

9. Mrs. Kirti Deshpande, learned counsel appointed to represent respondent No. 2 – complainant, has also supported the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court and submitted that there is no perversity in the aforesaid findings.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record and proceedings. We have gone through the evidence, documents, and the impugned judgment. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no eyewitness, and thus, the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while deciding the case of Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, on 23rd September, 1952, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, laid down the initial guidelines for recording a finding of guilt against the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which read thus: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence in of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

11. The aforesaid guidelines were further elaborated and explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in another leading case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in

(1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence, which are popularly known as the ‘Panchsheel’ of circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles are as follows: “The Five Golden Principles:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established: Each circumstance must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused: The circumstances should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency: The circumstances should be conclusive in pointing to the guilt of the accused.

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved*: The circumstances should be such that they exclude all other possible explanations except the guilt of the accused.

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused: The circumstances should form a complete chain, leaving no gaps or doubts. These principles have been widely cited and followed in Indian courts, providing a framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.”

12. Upon examining the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Court, whereby the present appellant has been convicted of the offences of murder, rape and destruction of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Court has committed an error of law in convicting the present appellant, as the circumstances forming the basis of conviction do not satisfy the aforesaid golden principles governing circumstantial evidence, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

13. On perusal of the entire judgment, we find that the learned trial Court has not discussed the basis on which it arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape upon the deceased. The only paragraph dealing with such a conclusion is paragraph 56, wherein the learned trial Court has solely relied upon the evidence of PW-6, Dr. Gajanan Washimkar, who deposed about the history narrated by the appellant at the time of his medical examination. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court was not justified in relying upon such weak evidence, particularly when the aforesaid witness had specifically admitted in his deposition that it was not necessary to obtain the signature or thumb impression of the person narrating the history on the medical examination report after recording such history.

14. Even otherwise, when the learned trial Court was convicting the present appellant of a serious offence like rape and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, such conviction was not based on any medical or scientific evidence. The sole basis for such conviction was the history narrated by the

appellant to PW-6, to the effect that he had physical relations with the deceased on the day of the incident. Even if it is assumed, without admitting, that such evidence could be relied upon, at the most, the aforesaid evidence would lead to the conclusion that the appellant had physical relations with the deceased with her consent. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the appellant had committed rape upon the deceased. Thus, in our considered opinion, the conviction of the present appellant for the offence of rape is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

15. A similar position emerges in respect of the offence of destruction of evidence, for which the learned trial Court has held the present appellant guilty under Section 238 of the BNS and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. On perusal of the entire judgment, we find that there is not a single finding recorded by the learned Sessions Court explaining how it arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had committed the aforesaid offence.

16. In paragraph 54, the learned trial Court has recorded the evidence of PW-8, Babu Kashiba Manmothe, who was a panch witness to the spot panchanama and deposed that he had seen the dead body of the deceased covered with carrot grass and that three stones had been placed to ensure that no one could see the dead body. It is also recorded that plain soil and blood-mixed soil were collected from the spot of the incident. The learned trial Court further recorded that 14 articles had been seized from the spot of the incident and that the result of the analysis, as per the CA report, was positive.

17. We have perused the CA report dated 2nd July, 2025, submitted by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which, though indicates that the blood detected on the earth and the jute gunny bag was human blood, does not conclusively establish the blood group of the detected blood, much less establish that the said blood belonged to the deceased. Thus, in the absence of any conclusive scientific evidence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the CA report was positive is perverse. Consequently, the conviction of the present appellant, being based on such a perverse finding, deserves to be set aside.

18. The learned Sessions Court, while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution had proved that the present appellant had committed the murder of deceased Jankabai, relied upon the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of PW-1, Madhukar Kisan Manothe, showed the condition in which the dead body was found. PW-1 had deposed that when he went to the house of Panchafula Navghare, he found his mother lying dead in the lane, and her face had turned black and blue. She had also sustained an injury to her right ear, and carrot grass (gajar gavat) and stones had been placed on her body to ensure that no one could see the dead body of the deceased. Similarly, her right hand had been eaten by mongoose. When the police arrived there, they found marks indicating that the said dead body had been dragged towards the house of the accused. They also found a blood-stained sack, a bunch of hair and a pair of scissors in the house. One wallet was also found there, and bloodstains were covered with cow dung. He also found that there were no clothes on the body of his mother.

19. The evidence of PW-1 was corroborated by the oral evidence of PW-2, Vasant Pandurang Manmothe, PW-3, Vimalbai Madhukar Manmothe, and PW-4, Sandip Tukaram Lad. Though PW-1 had deposed that his deceased mother had given the appellant a hand loan of Rs.50,000/-, he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not have any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Similarly, he admitted in his cross-examination that, though his mother had been missing since morning at 10:00 a.m., and he gave missing complaint to Police Station on 17.08.2024 at 2:00 p.m., he did not have any written acknowledgment substantiating the aforesaid fact. PW-1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not like his deceased mother having conversations with the present appellant.

20. The evidence of PW-6, Dr. Gajanan Washimkar, shows that he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. He found the bony structures of the deceased’s body, such as the humerus, radius and ulna, and the bones of the right hand. There was a contused lacerated wound measuring 8 cm x 6 cm on the right parietal area. There was another contused lacerated wound measuring 8 cm x 4 cm over the occipital region. There was an abrasion measuring 4 cm x 2 cm in the right anterior area. There was a fracture of the parietal bone. There was a head injury, as per the injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of the post-mortem report. There was also a haematoma measuring 8 cm x 7 cm in the right parietal area. The cause of death was head injury.

21. The evidence of PW-8, Babu Kashiba Manmothe, shows that he was the spot panch. He saw the dead body of the deceased covered with carrot grass (gajar gavat) and three stones to ensure that no one could see the dead body of the deceased. Similarly, as per the spot panchanama, soil and blood-mixed soil were collected from the spot of the incident. They also collected three stones and one cotton rope. It also appears that he went to the house of the accused, where they saw one torn sack bearing bloodstains, one pair of scissors and one wallet. Similarly, at some places at the spot of the incident, the bloodstains were found to have been covered with cow dung.

22. Thus, the oral evidence of all these prosecution witnesses, though it proves that deceased Jankabai had died due to head injury and that her body was found in the lane near the house of Panchafula Navghare, covered with carrot grass and stones to ensure that no one could see the dead body of the deceased, we fail to understand how the learned Sessions Court arrived at the conclusion that the aforesaid acts of committing the murder of deceased Jankabai, dragging her to the lane where her body was found and covering the same so that nobody could see her body were committed by the present appellant.

23. The learned Sessions Court relied upon the history given by the present appellant to PW-6, Dr. Gajanan Washimkar, wherein he had admitted to having sexual intercourse with the deceased on 17.08.2024 and thereafter tying her legs and throwing her into a neighbouring lane, to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape and murder of the deceased. The learned Sessions Court observed that, in all, 14 articles had been seized from the spot of the incident and that the appellant had failed to explain how the seized muddemal articles bearing bloodstains were found in the house of the appellant and how the marks of dragging the dead body from the house of the appellant to the spot of the incident were found. The failure on the part of the appellant to explain the same was treated as an incriminating circumstance, and accordingly, the learned trial Court held the present appellant guilty of committing the offence of murder.

24. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court completely violated the five golden principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) while convicting the present appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Court had not at all pointed out how the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and proved and how the aforesaid circumstantial evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Court had not at all explained how the aforesaid circumstances led to the conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed the aforesaid offence and how they excluded every possible hypothesis that some other person had committed the said offence. As discussed above, though the aforesaid articles were seized from the spot of the incident and the house of the accused, the scientific evidence does not connect them with the present appellant.

25. A similar is the case with the evidence of PW-6, Dr. Gajanan Washimkar, who had deposed that he performed the post-mortem examination of deceased Jankabai on 19.08.2024. On the day of the post-mortem examination, the body was decomposed, and there were signs of decomposition, such as blackening of the skin of the face. There were maggots measuring 2 cm in thickness found on the face and chest. There was also bloating of the abdomen, and there were bullae over the entire body. The hair had become detached from the scalp, and the entire muscle mass of the right upper limb was absent. The doctor admitted in his cross-examination that the minimum period required for maggots to develop in a decomposed body is six days. He made a categorical statement that, as per the post-mortem examination, he could say that death had occurred at least six days prior thereto. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 19.08.2024 and, therefore, the probable time of death could have been somewhere around 13th or 14th August, 2024. Thus, the aforesaid medical evidence raises a serious doubt about the prosecution story that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant on 17.08.2024.

26. The aforesaid doubt is further fortified by the conduct of PW-1, i.e., the son of the deceased, who did not bother to look for his mother throughout the day on 17.08.2024 and 18.08.2024 and, on the contrary, had gone on the next day to Deolgaon Wayasa to meet his daughter when he received his son’s phone call. Such conduct on the part of a son, whose elderly mother was missing, is not acceptable to any prudent mind and raises a doubt about the prosecution story that deceased Jankabai had been missing since 17.08.2024.

27. The fact remains that the prosecution could not prove that PW-1 had lodged a missing complaint with respondent No.1 regarding his mother. PW-1 also could not prove the fact that his deceased mother had given a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant, which, according to the prosecution, was the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of deceased Jankabai, as she was demanding repayment of the same.

28. The learned Sessions Court accepted the theory of the prosecution that the appellant had committed the murder of deceased Jankabai and thereafter tied her legs and dragged her to the spot in the lane where her body was found. Mr. Amol Jaltare, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ratnu Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 184, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar case, held that if the prosecution case is that the appellant had dragged the deceased, then the post-mortem report should explicitly record the injury marks on the body of the deceased caused due to such dragging.

29. In the present case, there is a further allegation by the prosecution that the appellant had tied her legs for the purpose of such dragging. However, upon perusal of the post-mortem report, it is revealed that there are no such injury marks on the body of the deceased caused due to dragging. Column No.17, pertaining to surface wounds, refers to contused and lacerated wounds. Similarly, Column No.16, pertaining to the position of limbs, does not show any injuries caused by a rope on the legs of the deceased.

30. The learned counsel for the appellant had specifically argued before the learned trial Court regarding the presence of maggots, which raised a serious doubt about the prosecution story. However, the learned Sessions Court had not at all dealt with the aforesaid circumstance and had held that the medical opinion regarding decomposition may only affect the precision of timing but does not discredit the prosecution case.

31. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has failed to consider the material evidence on record, which raises serious doubts about the prosecution story, and has, therefore, committed an error in convicting the present appellant for committing the murder of deceased Jankabai. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed, and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2025, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The appellant – Sitaram s/o. Kacharu Zingare is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 64(1) of the BNS. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(iv) The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per Rules.

32. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/11/2026 15:14:39