3-REVN-445-2025 (CR).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2025 Bharat Janaku Wayal ...Applicant/s VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3798 OF 2025 IN REVN/445/2025 Bharat Janaku Wayal ...Applicant/s VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. M/s. Juhi Kadu a/w. M/s. Savry Kolhekar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The challenge in this application is the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed – Rajgurunagar, Dist. Pune. rejecting the discharge application of the Applicant. 3. It is prosecution’s case that Applicant and co-accused murdered the husband of the First Informant on the ground of land dispute. Page 1 of 3 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.09.24 12:08:19 +0530 3-REVN-445-2025 (CR).doc Tikam 4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that there are specific allegations against Accused No.1 – Amar Vayal about killing the deceased. The allegations against the Applicant are that the Applicant along with co-accused conspired to kill the deceased. Except the statement of Abhijeet Yalbar, there is no evidence produced to show the involvement of the applicant in the crime. But this fact is not considered by the Learned Additional Sessions Court and requested to allow the Revision Application. 5. It is contention of learned APP that land dispute was going on between Applicant and the deceased and due to the said land dispute, the complaints were filed against each other. Applicant and Co-accused conspired to kill the deceased. Accordingly Accused No.1 murdered the deceased. To prove the conspiracy, evidence is required. The statement of witness Abhijeet Yalbar shows the angle of conspiracy. The Learned Additional Session Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to rejected the application. 6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. The prosecution's case against the Applicant is based on the statement of Abhijeet Yelbar, where he has stated that on 15/10/2021, he overheard the conversation between Applicant and co-accused. Except this statement, no other evidence is 3-REVN-445-2025 (CR).doc Tikam produced on record to show the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. In my view, the statement of this witness was recorded after 10 days of the incident. This witness did not inform about overheard conversation to the deceased or the family members. Hence, merely a statement cannot be considered as cogent evidence against the Applicant. As per the statement of eye witnesses Accused No.1 murdered the deceased. If trial is continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. In view of above, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Revision Application is allowed. (ii) The order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, Dist. Pune in Exhibit-13 in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2022 is quashed and set aside and the Applicant is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) of IPC, 1960 and under Section 4,25,27 of the Arms Act, 1959. (iii) Revision Application is disposed of. (iv) Pending Interim Application is also disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)