Bombay High Court Acquits Woman Allegedly Involved In Conspiracy To Kill Husband; Upholds Murder Conviction Of Her Lover

The Bombay High Court has acquitted a 34-year-old woman who was accused of being involved in a conspiracy to kill her husband; however, it has upheld the murder conviction of a 29-year-old man who was allegedly in illicit relationship with her.

The Aurangabad Bench was hearing two Criminal Appeals filed by the aforesaid accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Sandipkumar C. More held, “There are no circumstances established by the prosecution about the involvement of appellant Divya in the crime. On the contrary, it appears that it was an independent decision of appellant Pradeep to commit murder of husband of appellant Divya. It is well settled that suspicion, how so ever grave, cannot replace the proof. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the learned trial Judge has committed an error by drawing inference that appellant Divya was also involved in the present crime.”

The Bench said that the Trial Judge has directly jumped to the conclusion that the Appellant/Accused-Divya was also part of conspiracy for eliminating her husband-Jitendra.

Advocates Kuldip Kahalekar and Ajeet Manwani represented the Appellants/Accused while Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) S. R. Wakale represented the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the deceased’s brother (informant) lodged a report in 2014 in respect of firing in the shop of his brother. According to the informant, he received threatening texts on his mobile number from an unknown person. Allegedly, some other persons also received such messages on their mobile phones. They went to the Police Station but the police personnel were in hurry. On making inquiry, they came to know that there was firing in the deceased’s shop and hence, they immediately rushed to the shop where they found crowd. The people from crowd told the informant that his brother received bullet injury and was taken to the hospital. He rushed to the hospital but by that time, his brother was already declared dead. Since his brother died due to bullet injury on his left chest, he lodged report against unknown person in respect of murder of his brother, due to non-payment of ransom amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-.

Based on this report, police registered crime and started investigation. It was thereafter revealed that the Appellant-Pradeep was the person who had called the informant and his relative for ransom amount and committed murder of the deceased. It was also revealed that there were illicit relations between the Appellants- Pradeep and Divya, who was the wife of the deceased. Allegedly, Pradeep hatched conspiracy with Divya for killing the deceased and for that he obtained country made pistol from third accused Vikram and executed the plan. Hence, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. The Trial Court convicted all three accused. Pradeep was convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 120-B, and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act, 1959. Divya was convicted under Sections 120-B and 201 of IPC. They both were imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “… considering all these facts, the prosecution has conclusively established the guilt of accused, which is proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The act of appellant-Pradeep of killing Jitendra was with motive to extort ransom amount and his intention to kill the deceased is also apparent since he fired bullet on the chest of deceased i.e. vital part of the body from a near distance of 2 to 3 feet. Therefore, all the ingredients for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC are proved by the prosecution.”

The Court noted that the prosecution is indirectly claiming that Divya had given certain cash amount to Appellant Pradeep for procuring the pistol used in the crime.

“So far as evidence in respect of illicit relations between the appellants Pradeep and Divya is concerned, the prosecution claims that informant Shankar Mohanlal Bhatiya i.e. P.W. 4 Shankar disclosed the said relation before the police firstly on 8.5.2014. According to him, he gathered such information from one Monika aunty residing behind his house, who had told his wife Kanchan that her sister-in-law i.e. appellant Divya talks on phone throughout the day with one boy and the said boy within age group of 20 to 22 years visits Divya’s house in absence of deceased Jitendra and her children. Since Jitendra had a doubt on character of Divya, there was quarrel between deceased Jitendra and Divya on this count”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the disclosures made by the Appellants before the investigating officer are not admissible, but it certainly gives a clue for further investigation and as such, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of witnesses along with the electronic evidence.

“… call details are not duly certified by certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, we cannot rely on the same for concluding that appellants Pradeep and Divya were having love affair and they used these mobile phones for making conversation between them in respect of their relationship”, it said.

The Court further noted that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the love affair between both the Appellants.

“… it is extremely important to note that as per Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only Judicial Magistrate (F.C) or the Metropolitan Magistrate are empowered to record confessional statement. This P.W. 30 Bhakar Bhose though claim himself as Special Judicial Magistrate, but in fact he appears to be a Special Executive Magistrate”, it elucidated.

The Court reiterated that the confessional statement recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate is just a scrap paper and having no evidentiary value at all and it appears that the Trial Judge has exhibited these confessional statements for identification purpose and its evidentiary value was to be decided at the time of final stage.

“Thus, in the light of observations of this Court in the aforesaid judgments, these confessional statements cannot be used as evidence to prove love affair or any conspiracy between both these appellants”, it added.

The Court also took note of the fact that the Trial Judge, in view of illicit relations between the Appellants inferred that there was conspiracy between them for eliminating the deceased.

“Thus, on going through the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned trial Judge has drawn direct inference merely based on the fact that there were love relations between these appellants, and therefore, as there was love relations they conspired with each other and executed a plan of killing Jitendra. However, it further appears that the learned trial Judge while convicting appellant Divya for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, has not made any objective analysis of the evidence on record referring to the particular act of appellant Divya indicating that she hatched a conspiracy with appellant Pradeep”, it also remarked.

Conclusion

The Court said that except the fact of illicit relations between the Appellants, there is no other evidence on record in respect of conduct of Appellant Divya, which could establish that, she in fact, played some active role to facilitate Appellant Pradeep in hatching conspiracy for killing her husband.

“On the contrary, an inference can also be safely drawn that appellant Pradeep due to his affair with appellant Divya, might have taken independent decision to kill her husband, who according to her was harassing her physically and mentally. The evidence on record does not suggest any overt act on the part of appellant Divya”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Divya had shown the place where she destroyed the SIM Card given to her by Appellant Pradeep for having conversation with her but the prosecution has failed to recover the same.

“… the CDR in respect of SIM Card Nos. are not admissible for want of proper certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, no active role of appellant Divya in hatching conspiracy for killing Jitendra, has been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, she is certainly entitled for benefit of doubt”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Pradeep’s Appeal, allowed that of Divya, upheld the conviction of former, and acquitted latter.

Cause Title- Pradeep @ Shappu Janardhan Kokate v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:23640-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Kuldip Kahalekar, Ajeet Manwani, N.S. Ghanekar, and Swapnil Telang.

Respondent: APP S. R. Wakale

Click here to read/download the Judgment