SHRIKANT KAMAL CHAVAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Murder Conviction Upheld Based on Reliable Testimony of Natural Witness despite Delay in FIR and Inquest Conducted Prior to Registration of Crime.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11238-DB
Decision Date: 07-03-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Plea of Alibi; Conduct of the Accused (Abscondance)
- Facts: The appellant, Shrikant Kamal Chavan, was accused of murdering his wife, Sangita, on the night of March 31, 2019. The couple lived in temporary huts in Pune. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the deceased's mother (PW 1), who resided in an adjacent hut. PW 1 deposed that the appellant was addicted to liquor and frequently quarreled with Sangita over suspicions regarding her character. On the night of the incident, after a prolonged quarrel, PW 1 woke up to the sound of her grandson crying. She rushed outside and saw the appellant running away from the spot, while Sangita was lying in a pool of blood with a fatal axe wound to her neck. An iron axe and a blood-stained shirt belonging to the appellant were recovered from the scene. The appellant was arrested three days later in Karnataka.
- Procedural Posture: The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this conviction before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the commencement of certain investigative steps (like the inquest) prior to the formal registration of the FIR vitiated the trial; and whether the evidence of a related witness (the mother) was sufficient for conviction.
- Holding: No, the delay and the pre-FIR inquest did not vitiate the trial. The conviction was upheld.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that an inquest under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. is intended to ascertain the cause of death and is not substantive evidence; thus, conducting it before the FIR is not fatal unless prejudice is shown. The delay in the FIR (approximately 10 hours) was reasonably explained by the trauma of the mother seeing her daughter's body and the need to care for two minor children. Regarding the witness, the Court held that a "related witness" is not necessarily an "interested witness" and their testimony cannot be discarded if it is consistent and inspires confidence. The appellant's plea of alibi failed as he provided no evidence to support it. Furthermore, his conduct of vanishing from the scene (Section 8, Evidence Act) served as an additional incriminating circumstance.
🔒 For Members Only