VISHAL GANESH KASABE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Acquittal Based on Inconsistent Evidence: High Court overturns murder conviction due to FIR omission, conflicting statements, and lack of motive.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:485-DB
Decision Date: 02-01-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Circumstantial Evidence; Dying Declaration; Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Facts: Vishal Ganesh Kasabe was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Jitendra. The prosecution's case rested on the allegation that Kasabe held the deceased while another accused, Lallya Dadar, stabbed him. The FIR, lodged by the deceased's brother, did not initially name Kasabe. The appellant argued inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the dying declaration and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
- Procedural Posture: Kasabe appealed his conviction to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
- Issue: Was the conviction of the Appellant, Vishal Ganesh Kasabe, under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC sustainable based on the evidence presented, considering the inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements, the absence of his name in the initial FIR, and the lack of proven motive?
- Holding: No, the conviction is not sustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Sessions Court's judgment and acquitting Vishal Ganesh Kasabe.
- Reasoning: The Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The initial FIR did not mention Kasabe's involvement. PW-3's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not align with her court testimony regarding Kasabe holding the deceased. The Court noted that if PW-3 had disclosed Kasabe's role to PW-1 (the informant), PW-1 would have included it in the FIR. The Court also highlighted the absence of a proven motive and the unreliability of the recovery evidence. The Court emphasized that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the guilt of the accused, and exclude every other possible hypothesis, citing the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]. The Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
🔒 For Members Only