LAWS(BOM)-2025-7-90

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANTOSH

Decided On July 23, 2025
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
V/S
SANTOSH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Accused, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death, by Sessions Judge, Beed, vide judgment and order dtd. 12/12/2024, in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2021, has filed an appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence. The Sessions Judge, under Sec. 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has submitted a Reference, to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The confirmation case and the Appeal filed by the Accused are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts, which are necessary for decision of the confirmation case and the Criminal Appeal may briefly be stated thus -

(3.) Learned Advocate for the Accused assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction contending that, admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances. Vital links from the chain of circumstances are missing in the prosecution evidence. According to him, presence of the Accused, at the spot of the incident, in the fateful night, is not proved by the prosecution. Except CCTV footage, which is disbelieved by the Trial Court, there is no other evidence on record to prove that the accused was present at his house in the fateful night, more so, in view of the evidence of PW-14 Rajesh Satpute. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove motive for the commission of the crime. Merely because there used to be quarrels between the Accused and his deceased wife, it cannot be concluded that the Accused had motive to eliminate his wife and two sons. The Accused had filed missing complaint of Sangita and Kalpesh and on finding her at the house of PW-13 Vishal Wadmare, he had taken her back. If he had any doubt on the chastity of Sangita, he would not have brought her back with him from the house of Vishal Wadmare. Therefore, the Prosecution has failed to prove motive on the part of the Accused to commit the crime in question.