Interim Application No. 90 of 2026 · Bombay High Court · 2026

Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. By this application filed under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”, for short), the applicant seeks suspension of sentence imposed upon him vide judgment and order dated 11th August, 2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge Khed Rajgurunagar, Pune in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2018, whereby he has been convicted for the offence Rajeshri Aher 3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for short).

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him, the Applicant/Appellant has approached this Court by way of filing an Appeal, which is pending decision before this Court. Thus, pending the hearing and final disposal of the said Appeal, the present application has been filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and release of the Applicant on bail.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Joshi contends that, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, the prosecution has failed to establish the presence of the Applicant during the alleged incident. The trial Court has convicted the Applicant solely on the basis of the testimony of P.W.5, a child witness, who in fact, has stated in his cross examination that, the Applicant was not present at the time of alleged incident. He further submitted that the trial Court has also placed reliance upon the alleged recovery of clothes at the instance of the Applicant. It is contended that, the place from where the clothes were allegedly recovered, was not secured or protected by the investigating agency prior to effecting its recovery. The alleged recovery of clothes at the instance of Applicant thus, it is vulnerable. The prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of the Applicant in the commission of Rajeshri Aher 3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Yet the learned trial Judge proceeded to pass an order of conviction.

5. It is submitted that the Applicant has been in custody, undergoing the sentence for more than seven years. Thus, based on the available evidence, the impugned order of conviction of the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence it is required to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant deserves to be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit.

6. Per contra, the learned APP Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, has opposed the application contenting that, this is not a case for granting suspension of sentence, since it is based on direct evidence i.e. the testimony of son of the accused himself. In his testimony, the son of Applicant, namely, Soham Pralhad Rupnar, who was aged 14 years at the time of recording his deposition, has narrated the incident that had taken place in his presence leading to the death of his mother at the hands of his father i.e. Applicant. He has categorically stated that he was present during the incident and that he had seen his father assaulting his mother in the wee hours of the morning. His mother was assaulted on her head by his father, and thereafter, he too was assaulted on his back, with a belt, and was threatened not to make any noise. Thereafter, his father took him out of the house. He also stated that, after committing the offence, the Applicant had tried to commit Rajeshri Aher 3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC suicide. Thus, according to the learned APP Ms. Shinde, considering the testimony of the eyewitness, which is very much reliable and trustworthy, the judgment and order of conviction has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, Pune, and the same does not deserve any interference.

7. We have gone through the judgment as well as the notes of evidence placed on record by the Applicant. The charge against the Applicant is that he had committed murder of his wife, Yashoda @ Pratiksha Pralhad Rupnar, and of destroying the evidence and screening himself from legal consequences.

8. P.W. 5 is a child eyewitness, who is the son of the accused–Applicant. He was present during the incident leading to the offence. He has unequivocally stated in his deposition that, while they were residing at Chakan, he was studying in the first standard. He was present when the Applicant i.e. his father has choked the deceased with his feet and also assaulted her with iron rod, which proved to be fatal. He further narrated that, after the incident, he was taken away by the Applicant along with him. They traveled in ST bus to their village Mamdapur and after reaching the village, his father had consumed poison. Nothing fatal to the story of prosecution could be elicited from this witness in his cross–examination, to disbelieve him. His statement has also been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He being an eye witness, he had narrated the incident which is consistent with his testimony. Apart from testimony of P. W. 5, the Rajeshri Aher 3 IA 90 OF 2026, J.DOC prosecution has also relied on the testimony of P.W. 9 Dr. Sampat Baburao Kedare, who conducted the post-mortem. He has stated that, there was an incised wound over right side of nape of neck, which was oblique of size 3.5 c.m. long x

2.5 c.m. deep x 1.5 c.m. wide. These injuries support the version of P.W. 5 eyewitness, who has categorically stated that, the accused has choked the neck of the deceased with his feet. Even the statement of P.W. 5 regarding gagging the mouth of his mother with the scarf is supported in the post-mortem report. Considering the substantive evidence in the form of deposition of P.W. 5, who is an eye witness which is corroborated by the medical evidence, i.e. deposition of P.W. 9, we do not find any case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail by the Applicant. Hence, the Application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Rajeshri Aher