MAHESH S/O NATTHUJI DEVGUNE (IN JAIL) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH P.S.O. P.S. NAGPUR
Upholding Conviction in Murder Case: Analysis of Eyewitness Testimony, Extra-Judicial Confession, and Unlawful Assembly under IPC Sections 149 and 302.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:537-DB
Decision Date: 14-01-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Criminal Procedure Code
- Facts: Mahesh Natthuji Devgune, Sanjiv Shankar Kuhikar, Santosh Chaitram Kuhikar, Devanand Chaitram Kuhikar, Sheshrao Ramdas Kuhikar, and Rajesh Ramprasad Kuhikar were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 of the IPC. The conviction arose from an incident where the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, assaulted and killed Dinesh Shendekar. The prosecution's case rested on eyewitness testimony, extra-judicial confession of one accused, recovery of weapons, and medical evidence.
- Procedural Posture: The convicted accused filed criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2014) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
- Issue: Whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, considering the challenges to the eyewitness testimony, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of weapons?
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the criminal appeals, upholding the conviction of the accused.
- Reasoning: The High Court analyzed the evidence, including the eyewitness testimony, the extra-judicial confession of accused Devanand Chaitram Kuhikar, the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, and the medical evidence. The Court found that the eyewitness testimony of PW5 was reliable, despite some delay in recording the statement, as he was a resident of the same locality and his presence at the scene was natural. The Court also found the extra-judicial confession to be voluntary and credible, as it was made without any threat, inducement, or promise. The recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused was also considered a crucial piece of evidence, supported by the testimony of the pancha witness and the investigating officer. The Court noted that the medical evidence corroborated the oral evidence and the scientific evidence linked the accused to the crime. The High Court emphasized that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, establishing that they were members of an unlawful assembly and committed the murder in furtherance of their common intention. The Court also addressed the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, finding that it was lodged promptly after the incident.
🔒 For Members Only