HEADNOTE
Mahesh s/o Natthuji Devgune v. State of Maharashtra
(Along with Sanjiv Shankar Kuhikar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra)
Court: Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
Bench: Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke & Nandesh S. Deshpande
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:538-DB
Laws / Sections Involved: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 read with 149; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313
Keywords: Criminal appeal, murder conviction, eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, unlawful assembly, Section 149 IPC
Summary
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed two connected criminal appeals and upheld the conviction of the accused for murder and allied offences arising from a brutal assault involving swords, guptis, and knives. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the homicidal death of the deceased through cogent medical evidence and reliable eyewitness testimony. Rejecting the defence challenge based on alleged delay in recording statements, recovery defects, and faulty investigation, the Bench ruled that minor lapses in investigation do not vitiate a prosecution case when substantive evidence clearly establishes guilt. Emphasising the corroborative strength of medical evidence and the applicability of Section 149 IPC, the Court affirmed life imprisonment awarded for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Court’s decision
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos. 80 of 2014 and 110 of 2014, affirming the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the accused for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Court upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for murder, observing that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, strong medical evidence, and corroborative circumstances.
Facts
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 19 January 2011 in Timki Mochipura, Nagpur, where the deceased was brutally assaulted by a group of accused armed with deadly weapons. The assault followed a prior dispute involving monetary issues between the families. The deceased suffered multiple incised, chop, and stab injuries across vital parts of the body and succumbed on the spot. An injured eyewitness also sustained wounds during the same incident. Following investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted and convicted by the Sessions Court in 2014.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were whether the prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions and procedural lapses, whether delayed recording of eyewitness statements rendered the testimony unreliable, and whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was sustainable in law.
Appellants’ arguments
The appellants contended that the case rested largely on circumstantial evidence and that key eyewitness statements were recorded belatedly without adequate explanation. It was argued that recoveries of weapons and blood-stained clothes were doubtful due to lack of proper sealing, delayed forwarding to forensic authorities, and absence of link evidence. The defence also alleged fabrication of the FIR and faulty investigation, urging that these deficiencies entitled the accused to acquittal.
Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the prosecution case was supported by direct eyewitness testimony corroborated by overwhelming medical and forensic evidence. It was submitted that delay in recording statements was satisfactorily explained by the prevailing law-and-order situation and fear among witnesses. The prosecution further contended that minor lapses in investigation could not overshadow substantive evidence clearly establishing the participation of the accused in the crime.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the scope of appreciation of evidence in criminal appeals and reiterated that the testimony of medical witnesses is not merely opinion evidence but also direct evidence of facts observed during postmortem examination. The Bench reaffirmed that Section 149 IPC fastens vicarious liability when the offence is committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that defective investigation does not necessarily result in acquittal if the core prosecution case is otherwise proved. It also referred to authoritative precedents on the evidentiary value of medical testimony and delayed eyewitness statements, holding that delay by itself is not fatal if adequately explained and corroborated.
Court’s reasoning
The Bench found that the deceased suffered as many as 65 ante-mortem injuries, many of which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The medical evidence conclusively established homicidal death. Eyewitness accounts, though recorded after some delay, were found consistent, natural, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and acted with a common object to commit murder, attracting Section 149 IPC.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the conviction and sentences imposed were lawful and justified. The criminal appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that credible eyewitness testimony supported by strong medical evidence can sustain murder convictions despite procedural irregularities in investigation. It also reiterates the wide sweep of Section 149 IPC in fastening collective criminal liability in cases of group violence.
Case law references
• Nagindra Bala Mitra v. Sunil Chandra Roy (Supreme Court, 1960)
Holding: Medical evidence is independent and direct evidence of facts observed.
Application: Relied upon to affirm evidentiary value of postmortem findings.
• Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court, 2022)
Holding: Medical evidence has strong corroborative value in criminal trials.
Application: Applied to uphold conviction based on medical corroboration.
FAQs
Q1. Can delay in recording eyewitness statements invalidate a conviction?
No. Delay alone is not fatal if satisfactorily explained and corroborated by other evidence.
Q2. What role did medical evidence play in this case?
Medical evidence conclusively proved homicidal death and corroborated eyewitness testimony.
Q3. Why was Section 149 IPC applied?
Because the accused acted as members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder.
