901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1138 OF 2020 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1212 O 2026 IN APPLN/1138/2020 THE STATE O MAHARASHTRA VERSUS NAMDEO RAMDAS DEVKAR AND OTHERS …. Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP or the Applicant-State Mr. C.C. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 Mr. Datta Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. N. N. Bhagwat, Advocate for Assist to APP …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 11/08/2026 PER COURT : 1. Criminal Application No.1138 of 2026 has been filed by the appellant-State seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial Judge”) on 01/10/2019 in Sessions Case No.155 of 2013. Criminal Application No.1212 of 2026 has been filed by the original complainant, Bhagwan Narayan Bhale, i.e. the father of the deceased, seeking permission to assist the prosecution. By the impugned judgment and order dated 01/10/2019 passed in the aforesaid case, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. VS Maind/ Page|1 2026:BHC-AUG:35506 901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 . 2. According to the prosecution case, in the intervening night of 09/02/2013 and 10/02/2013, all the respondents-accused took the deceased, Amol Bhale, in a car and thereafter committed his murder by throttling him at some place in village Madke. Thereafter, all the accused carried the dead body of Amol Bhale to the vicinity of Walunj, Ahmednagar and placed it beneath the bridge over the Sina River. They then poured diesel over the dead body of Amol Bhale and set it on fire, burning it to the extent of 96%. According to the prosecution, all the accused committed the murder of deceased Amol Bhale on account of business rivalry with Namdeo Ramdas Devkar, with whom the deceased was earlier working. Subsequently, the deceased had started his own business, thereby causing a loss to the business of accused Namdeo Devkar. 3. The learned APP strongly submitted that the learned trial Judge has acquitted all the accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record and by ignoring the confession made by one of the accused as well as the last-seen theory. Moreover, the learned trial Judge has discarded the trustworthy and reliable evidence of the informant in the context of the circumstantial evidence on record. He pointed out that incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of accused No.3, Sandip Divte and that his confession was also ignored. According to the learned APP, the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of all the accused; however, the learned trial Judge has erroneously acquitted them. The learned counsel for the informant also supported the submissions advanced by the learned APP. VS Maind/ Page|2 901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 . 4. Heard the learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the informant. We have also perused the notes of evidence and the impugned judgment. 5. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the actual incident of murder. However, the prosecution relies upon certain circumstances which, according to it, point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution can be summarized as follows: A) There was rivalry between the deceased and accused Namdeo Devkar and Sandip Divte. B) In the night of the incident, the deceased was seen in the company of the accused. C) The Investigating Officer recovered receipts (Exhibits 94 and 95) from a hotelier and a pair of chappals from the vicinity of village Madke at the instance of accused Namdeo Devkar. Moreover, a plastic can, matchbox and rope were recovered from beneath the bridge over the Sina River at the instance of accused Sandip Devkar. He also made a confessional statement before PW-7, Bhaskar Bhos, the Special Judicial Magistrate, stating that the deceased was murdered by the co-accused by throttling him. D) The accused have not offered any plausible explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. VS Maind/ Page|3 901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 . 6. Admittedly, the death of deceased Amol Bhale was homicidal, as he had sustained a head injury and extensive burn injuries. The dead body of Amol Bhale was burnt to the extent of 96%. As such, there can be no dispute that the deceased was murdered. However, in order to connect the present respondents-accused with the murder of the deceased, the prosecution has come forward with a case that the deceased was earlier working with accused Namdeo Devkar. When the informant, Bhagwan Bhale (PW-3), had approached accused Namdeo Devkar and requested him to increase the salary of his son, Namdeo Devkar refused to do so, resulting in the deceased leaving the job. It also cannot be seriously disputed that thereafter the deceased started a similar business under the name and style of “Sai Net Cafe”. 7. According to the informant, the deceased had gone with the accused to Shani Shingnapur and did not return thereafter and his dead body was subsequently found. However, though the informant stated so before the learned trial Judge, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the facts stated by him in accordance with the prosecution case do not find place in his statement. Thus, it appears that the informant has improved his version while deposing before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of the informant appears to be unreliable, particularly when he admitted that there was no quarrel between himself and the accused prior to lodging the missing report. This glaring admission on the part of the informant is certainly fatal to the prosecution case, as there was no apparent motive for the accused to commit the murder of Amol Bhale. Moreover, it has also come in the evidence of the informant that two to three days prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between Amol Bhale and one Manoj Andhale, during which the deceased had sustained an injury to his head. Thus, the possibility of the involvement of a third person, other than the accused, in the incident cannot be ruled out. VS Maind/ Page|4 901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 . 8. The prosecution case also rests upon the alleged confessional statement made by accused Sandip Divte before the Special Judicial Magistrate, wherein he allegedly admitted that they had committed the murder of the deceased. However, the evidence of the said Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhaskar Bhos (PW-7), is also not convincing, mainly because it is inconsistent with the statements of Bappa Raut and Mahesh Sonawane at Exhibits 68 and 69. Moreover, Bhaskar Bhos (PW- 7) has specifically stated that being a Special Judicial Magistrate, he was not empowered to record the confessional statement of accused Sandip Divte under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from this, the said confessional statement indicates that on the night of 09/02/2013, at about 7:45 p.m., accused Sandip Divte called Amol Bhale and informed him that he, along with the other accused, intended to go to Shani Shingnapur and asked him to accompany them. However, the said statement does not mention that the friends of Amol Bhale, namely, Bappa Raut and Mahesh Sonawane, had also come to the house of Sandip Divte. Therefore, the discrepancies between the statements of those persons at Exhibits 68 and 69 and the alleged confessional statement of accused Sandip Divte create a doubt about the prosecution case that Amol Bhale was last seen in the company of the accused by those two persons. Thus, the last-seen theory put forth by the prosecution is also doubtful. 9. Moreover, the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused is also doubtful. Initially, despite a search of the area beneath the Sina Bridge, nothing incriminating was found. It therefore appears that the subsequent recovery of the alleged incriminating articles does not inspire confidence, particularly when the informant, Ashok Khaire (PW-1) and the Investigating Officer, Milind Patil (PW-9), have stated that they had searched the nearby area, including the bridge, for VS Maind/ Page|5 901 Cri. Appln 1138 -20 & Cri. Appln 1212-26 . any incriminating material, but had not found anything suspicious. Further, the alleged incriminating articles appear to have been recovered from an open place accessible to all and from the nature of those articles the same could have been easily available at any such open place. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. While considering an appeal against acquittal, merely because another view is possible is not sufficient to warrant interference. From the evidence on record, we find that the learned trial Judge has taken a possible view by properly appreciating the evidence and has thereafter extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused. Considering all these aspects, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order. Since we do not find any substance in the application seeking leave to appeal, no question arises for condoning the delay as sought by the prosecution. Accordingly, the Criminal Application seeking condonation of delay, along with the application seeking leave to appeal, stands dismissed. 11. In view of the disposal of the Criminal Application seeking condonation of delay and the application seeking leave to appeal, the application seeking permission to assist the learned APP also stands disposed of. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE] JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/ Page|6