17-CRIA-87-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2026 IN CR. APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2026 Rahul Alias Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav ...Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. —————— Mr. Rahul R Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 07, 2026. P. C. : 1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, in Sessions Case No.21/2016, by Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022, convicting and sentencing the Applicant – Appellant as follows : “1) The accused Rahul @ Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav, is convicted under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with C.R.No.46 of 2015 registered with Dhebewadi Police Station, District Satara and he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 2) He is further convicted under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (One) month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 (Seven) days. Sameer 1 of 5 2026:BHC-KOL:8642-DB 17-CRIA-87-2026.doc 3) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 4) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 5) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 6) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 7) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 8) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 9) ….. …… …… …… ……. ……. …….. ……. …..” 2. The Prosecution's case, as can be seen from the impugned Judgment, is that, the Applicant - Appellant himself went to the Dhebewadi Police Station, District – Satara on 06.11.2015 and confessed that, he committed the murder of Sandip Chavan, who was the cousin brother of the girl with whom the Applicant - Appellant was having friendly relations. The police registered the crime. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, and the clothes of the Applicant - Appellant came to be seized. The report of the Chemical Analyser disclosed that, the blood of the deceased was found on the Applicant’s - Appellant’s clothes. The charge-sheet was filed. The Applicant - Appellant came to be tried and convicted as above. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant - Appellant that, the evidence against the Applicant - Appellant is of last seen together, the report lodged by the Applicant - Appellant himself, and blood-stained clothes. He submits that, the Applicant - Appellant is behind bars for a period of more than ten (10) years. The Appeal will take time to come up for final hearing. He submits that, the Applicant - Sameer 2 of 5 17-CRIA-87-2026.doc Appellant will co-operate with this Court for early hearing of the Appeal. He submits that, the Application be allowed. 4. It is submitted by the learned APP for the Respondent – State that, the Applicant - Appellant himself went to the police station and confessed the crime. The crime was registered on the report lodged by the Applicant - Appellant. Two witnesses are examined by the Prosecution to show that, the Applicant - Appellant was last seen with the deceased. The dead body was discovered at the instance of the Applicant – Appellant. The clothes of the Applicant - Appellant were found stained with the blood group of the deceased. She submits that, the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record, and no case for suspension of sentence is made out, and the Application be rejected. 5. With the assistance of both the sides, we have gone through the notes of evidence. Though the Prosecution examined PW No.11 – Ajay Dinkar Matekar and PW No.13 – Tanaji Baburao Lokare on the point of last seen, the evidence of the said witnesses nowhere shows that, they saw the Applicant - Appellant in the company of the deceased soon before the incident. Therefore, the said evidence cannot be said to be on the point of last seen together. The papers show that, the crime was registered on the report lodged by the Applicant - Appellant. The said Sameer 3 of 5 17-CRIA-87-2026.doc amount to confession, proof of which is prohibited by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). Though the evidence of PW – 3 – Somnath Baban Patil shows that, he went to the police station at 03:00 p.m. and he was panch to the discovery of the dead body under Section 27 of the said Act, his cross-examination shows that, when they reached on the spot along with the Applicant – Appellant, relatives of the deceased, the police patil, policemen and villagers were already present on the spot. Further, the evidence of PW – 13 - Tanaji Baburao Lokare shows that, when he returned at 01:00 p.m. from work, he learnt from Tanta Mukti President Sunil Chavan that, the murder had taken place where he saw the Applicant – Appellant in the morning. This evidence on record do no conclusively establish that, the dead body was discovered only at the instance of the Applicant – Appellant. What the said evidence indicates is that, the body was already found. Therefore, the evidence under Section 27 of the said Act would not be relevant. The only evidence against the Applicant - Appellant is the blood-stained clothes. Whether the said evidence is sufficient to maintain the conviction will be examined at the time of final hearing when the evidence will be re- appreciated. The Applicant - Appellant is behind bars for more than ten (10) years. The Appeal is of 2026 and there is no possibility that, the Appeal would be heard in the near future. Hence, we proceed to pass Sameer 4 of 5 17-CRIA-87-2026.doc the following order : ORDER [a] The Application is allowed. [b] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad in Sessions Case No.21/2016, by the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022 on the Applicant / Appellant, is suspended during pendency of the Appeal. [c] Applicant / Appellant - Rahul Alias Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount. [d] The Applicant shall co-operate in early hearing of the Appeal. [e] Bail before the learned Trial Court. [f] Application stands disposed of accordingly. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Sameer 5 of 5