The State Of Maharashtra vs Monika Kiran Suryawanshi
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 685
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2282-2284 OF 2011
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ……..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MONIKA KIRAN SURYAWANSHI & ORS. …….. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2286-2288 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeals are being preferred before this
Court against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2010 in Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2026.07.13
16:56:07 IST
Reason:
Appeal No. 61/2008 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 72/2008 and
332/2008, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at
1
Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, by which the Hon'ble High Court had
set aside the order of conviction under section 302, 201 read with
section 34 and under section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (herein
after referred to as ‘IPC’) passed by the learned Trial Court and
acquitted the respondent numbers 1 to 3.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case can be unfolded as under:
2. The accused No. 1 Monika was married to the deceased Kiran
Suryawanshi, who was serving in I.C.I.C.I. Bank in the year 2001
and it was a love marriage and they were residing at plot no. 103,
Shramsafalya Colony, at Deopur and they were also blessed with one
daughter namely Hemal out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that,
the accused no. 2 Prakash is neighbour of accused no. 1 and was
staying in plot no. 104, Shramsafalya Colony, Deopur and he had
love affair with accused no. 1 Monika whereas accused no.3
Dnyaneshwar and accused no. 4 Deepak are friends of accused
no. 2.
3. It is also alleged that the conspiracy was hatched by accused
nos. 1 and 2 along with accused nos. 3 and 4 to eliminate Kiran
Suryawanshi and then to bury his dead body and accused nos. 2 and
3 went near Nakane Dam with intention to bury the body. It is
2
further alleged that accused no. 1 administered some sedative tablets
and injections to victim Kiran Suryawanshi and thereafter his head
was smashed with the help of grinding stone and thereafter his body
was wrapped in a plastic bag and bed sheet. Pursuant to the
conspiracy, accused Nos. 2 and 3 had hired a motorcycle of their
friend namely Rahul Jagdale and after accused no. 1 Monika killed
the victim Kiran, the dead body of Kiran was being carried on the
said motorcycle in the morning of 15.02.2007. While they were
carrying the said dead body on the motorcycle, P.W.19 Police
Constable Rajendra Mohite saw them and noticed that something
was kept in between them and, therefore, he stopped them
immediately and questioned them, but the accused nos. 2 and 3 gave
evasive replies. Since the said place came under the jurisdiction of
Deopur Police Station, P.W.19 Rajendra Mohite called his friend
Prabhakar Bramhane, attached to Deopur Police Station by
telephone, who arrived on the said spot along with Constable
Mukhtar Shaikh and on seeing them, the accused nos. 2 and 3 were
frightened. P.W.19 Rajendra Mohite noticed a human foot protruding
out of the bundle when he saw it carefully and, therefore, questioned
both the accused nos. 2 and 3 and they disclosed their names as
Prakash Nagraj Patil and Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale,
3
respectively. On further questioning, they disclosed that it was a
dead body of Kiran Suryawanshi.
4. On the night between February 14 and 15, 2007, P.S.I. Sharad
Kulkarni of the Deopur Police Station was on patrolling duty when
he encountered Constables Bramhane, Mukhtar Shaikh, and
Rajendra Mohite questioning two men on a motorcycle (MH18P8077).
Upon intervention, P.S.I. Kulkarni noted that the men, later
identified as accused nos. 2 and 3, gave evasive replies. His
suspicions were confirmed when he noticed a human leg protruding
from a bundle on the vehicle. He immediately secured the scene, took
the suspects into custody, and summoned government photographer
Bapu Wadekar (P.W.7) to document the opening of the bundle, which
contained the body of the victim, Kiran Suryawanshi. A formal
seizure panchanama of the motorcycle was conducted in the
presence of witness Santosh Jadhav.
5. The investigation escalated when accused no. 2, Prakash,
allegedly used his mobile phone to alert accused no. 1, Monika, about
their detention. Following this admission, P.S.I. Kulkarni dispatched
officers to bring Monika i.e. accused no. 1 to the scene. After
registering Crime No. 21/2007 under sections 302, 120B, 201, and
34 of IPC, the case was handed over to P.S.I. Govind Tamhankar.
4
Detailed procedural steps followed, including the preparation of an
inquest panchanama at the Civil Hospital and systematic personal
searches of all three accused. These searches yielded critical
evidence, including three mobile phones, cash, a credit card, and
travel documents, all of which were seized under various
panchanamas (Exhibits 90 and 46) during the process of
investigation subsequently the formal arrest of the suspects was
effected.
6. Following the initial arrests, P.S.I. Govind Tamhankar led a
search of accused no. 1 Monika’s residence, which yielded several
pieces of incriminating evidence. Most notably, a mobile phone found
on a file was identified as belonging to the deceased, Kiran
Suryawanshi. Within the kitchen, investigators seized samples of
half-consumed rice, fish, and mutton for forensic analysis, alongside
a steel pot containing an unidentified powder and two small, partially
filled liquor bottles. Physical evidence of a struggle or crime was also
documented, including a slab of tile and an ordinary tile, while
bloodstains and clots were discovered near the door's ‘Koba’ and
below the ‘Ota’ (kitchen platform) all of which were officially attached
under Exhibit 54.
5
7. The investigation then moved into a more formal evidentiary
phase. P.S.I. Tamhankar recorded statements of the witnesses
including police personnel, Constable Rajendra Mohite and Mukhtar
Shaikh, as well as various panch witnesses. All three accused were
referred to a Civil Hospital for medical examinations, where doctors
collected nail clippings and swabs to preserve biological evidence.
Furthermore, the scene at Monika’s house was documented by
government photographer Bapu Wadekar. By February 16, 2007, the
police had further consolidated their case by recording a
supplementary statement from P.S.I. Kulkarni and seizing the
clothing worn by all three accused persons under Exhibits 48 and
93. As the investigation progressed between February 18 and May
7, 2007, P.S.I. Govind Tamhankar executed a series of recovery
procedures based on the voluntary disclosures of the accused. Under
Memorandum Panchanama (Exhibit 94), accused no. 1, Monika, led
the police to her residence in Shramsafalya Colony. From a hidden
spot near a bush, she produced a grinding stone, broken glass pieces
from an injection vial, a used syringe, and blood-stained clothes and
a handkerchief, all of which were seized as critical physical evidence
(Articles 29–33).
6
8. The scope of the investigation soon widened to include the
logistics of the crime. Accused no. 2, Prakash, led the police to
several commercial establishments such as a shop owned by Anita
Agrawal, where they had rented a pickaxe and spade (Articles 51 and
52); a shop owned by Asif Shaikh, where they purchased rope; and
another shop where syringes were bought. Prakash also pointed out
a ditch near Nakane Talao that had been dug for the disposal of the
body. Further searches in the city of Kannad led to the residence of
Jitendra Neve, from whom tablets were sourced, and to Prakash’s
own rented room. There, police used a previously seized key to access
computer of accused no. 2, Prakash, which contained photographs
of Monika and letterheads from Janseva Blood Bank.
9. In the final stages, P.S.I. Tamhankar arrested accused no. 4,
Deepak, at Manas Hospital in Aurangabad and recorded statements
of other set of witnesses, including the owner of Apna Lodge, the
victim’s family, and mobile service providers to establish a digital
trail. Expert opinion was sought from Dr. Ajit Patil to figure out the
grinding stone’s role in the injuries, and all physical evidence was
sent for Chemical Analyzer (C.A.) testing. Following the receipt of the
C.A. reports (Exhibits 50 and 56), a comprehensive charge sheet was
filed on May 7, 2007. Due to the gravity of the charges, the case was
7
committed from the Magistrate's Court to the Sessions Court at
Dhule for trial. Charge was framed against the accused. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has
examined in all total 26 witnesses.
10. Vide judgment and order dated 07.02.2008 in Sessions Case
No. 54/2007, Ld. Sessions Judge, Dhule convicted accused nos. 1,
2 and 3 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On being aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction, the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed
Criminal Appeal Nos. 61/2008, 72/2008 and 332/2008 before the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.
11. Vide judgment dated 10.3.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of
2008 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 72 of 2008 and 332 of 2008, passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad, had acquitted accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground
that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused.
12. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the
appellants i.e. the State of Maharashtra and the father of the
deceased have approached this Court. During the pendency of the
appeal, father died and the said appeal is prosecuted through mother
i.e. Rekhabai Ramesh Suryawanshi.
8
CONTENTIONS
13. Mr. Sanjay Kharde, learned Senior Counsel representing the
appellants made the following submissions in support:
13.1. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
accused no. 1 had extra marital relations with accused no. 2 and
therefore, they had conspiracy and, in the night, some sedative
tablets and injections were administered to the deceased and also
the head of the deceased was smashed by grinding stone.
13.2. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that
as per the evidence of doctor, he has found two marks of injections
and the cause of death was because of the head injury and therefore,
there is no doubt that the death of deceased was homicidal and
thereby he supports the case of prosecution.
13.3. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that
after the arrest of accused no. 1, at her instance, the grinding stone
was seized from the hidden place kept by accused no.1.
13.4. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that
accused nos. 2 and 3 were caught red-handed while carrying dead
body. There was blood on the plate of silencer of the motorcycle. It is
further submitted that as per the C.A. report the blood on the silencer
was of blood group 'A' and it was of the deceased. There were material
9
circumstances which show that there was a conversation between
accused nos. 1 and 2 and it is proved by the concerned officer of the
mobile company.
13.5.
The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted
that accused nos. 2 and 3 dug a ditch for burying the dead body and
it was shown by accused nos. 2 and 3 to the Investigating Officer.
The circumstances brought on record unerringly point towards the
guilt of the accused.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent made the
following submissions:
14.1. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel for accused no.
1 urged that, the main pivot of the prosecution case is rested upon
the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence.
14.2. Further it was submitted that victim Kiran met with an
accident and succumbed to the injuries and accused nos. 2 and 3
contended that they were never caught at the spot and that the dead
body of the deceased must have been found in unattended condition
and accused no. 2 was in his house, from where he was arrested.
14.3. Again, the learned counsel for accused no. 1 submitted
that there is absolutely no positive legal evidence adduced/ produced
on the prosecution record to prove and establish that there was any
10
love affair between accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 and mere
production of record of telephone calls of cell phones between
accused nos.1 and 2 cannot be construed as proof of a love affair
between them.
14.4. It is further submitted that, in the said context,
prosecution has examined P.W.13 Jitendra Neve, whom accused no.
2 allegedly had shown a photograph of accused no. 1 Monika on the
computer, stating that she was his lover and prosecution has also
examined P.W.18 Lalit Bhavsar, who allegedly handed over packet of
gift to accused no. 1 Monika and later on when P.W.18 allegedly
questioned accused no. 2, he stated that accused No. 1 was his lover
and beyond that there is nothing on record to prove and establish
the love affairs between accused nos.1 and 2.
14.5. It was further submitted that, the claim in the F.I.R. that
it is the accused no. 1 who contacted accused no. 2 calling him to
the house is false contention and has not been supported by printout
data of mobile communications.
14.6. The learned counsel for accused no. 1 submitted that in
the statement by accused no. 1 recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘CrPC’) that the
said house search panchanama was prepared falsely and she
11
claimed that no such panchanama was drawn and her signatures
were taken on the blank papers.
ANALYSIS
15. Heard Ld. Counsel for the appellants as well as Ld. Counsel for
the respondent. We have also perused relevant documents on record
and the judgments passed by the Courts below.
16. Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay, bench at
Aurangabad, vide its judgment dated 10.03.2010 had set aside the
order of conviction under section 302, 201 read with section 34 and
under section 120(B) of IPC passed by the learned Trial Court and
acquitted the respondent no.1 to 3. The High Court on analytical
assessment and appreciation of the evidence as well as evaluating
the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties assigned the detailed reasons for recording the acquittal of
respondent nos. 1 to 3. It may not be out of place to refer to the
conclusions arrived at by the High Court in the judgment impugned
herein:-
“We are inclined to accept the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 since as canvased
by learned respective counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3, the
prosecution has failed to prove and establish the guilt against
the accused Nos.1 to 3 by circumstantial evidence proving each
and every circumstance to be incriminating as aforestated and
12
chain thereof unerringly excluding the hypothesis that the
accused Nos.1 to 3 alone are the perpetrators of the crime and
none else and there are vital lacunae and infirmities and
deformities in the case of prosecution as enumerated and
pinpointed by the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 3 as
mentioned hereinabove. As regards accused No. 1, the
circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution in respect of
alleged extramarital love affairs between her and accused No.
2 through P.W.13 Jitendra Neve and P.W.18 Lalit Bhavsar and
the evidence of last seen the deceased Kiran Suryawanshi in
his house by P.W.25 Rajendra Goswami on the fateful night is
weak type of evidence as well as the evidence of telephone
calls produced by the prosecution on record and printouts
thereof also cannot be construed as incriminating evidence
against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein for the reasons
mentioned hereinabove and further the evidence of seizure of
recovery from the house of accused No. 1 and/or at the behest
of accused No. 1 and the concerned C.A. reports thereof would
not connect the accused with the alleged crime since there are
lapses and laches therein, more particularly, the alleged
articles seized from the house of the accused No. 1 and/or
seized at the instance of accused No. 1 were not sealed and,
therefore, the said evidence does not lead to prosecution case
to any logical conclusion to connect the accused No. 1 with the
alleged crimes. Pertinently, no blood was found on the
mattresses, Chaddar and pillow in the house of accused No. 1
and the said aspect also speaks volumes for itself. Moreover,
prosecution has failed to prove and establish the very time of
offence and time of death of the victim by cogent evidence and
the said lacuna also sustains fatal blow to the prosecution case
and, therefore, the accused No. 1 is entitled for the benefit of
doubt.
50. As regards accused Nos. 2 and 3, except accosting accused
Nos. 2 and 3 by P.W.19 Rajendra Mohite at about 5.00 a.m.
during the intervening night between 14.02.2007 and
15.02.2007 on motorcycle near the Panchayat Samiti Office
carrying bundle of dead body of deceased Kiran Suryawanshi,
there is no other convincing legal incriminating evidence
against the accused Nos. 2 and 3 to connect them with the
alleged crimes and the probable defence put forth by the
accused Nos. 1 to 3 that the victim met with an accident and
succumbed to injuries cannot be ruled out. Besides, as
13
mentioned hereinabove, there is no direct/ circumstantial
evidence to prove and establish any crime between the accused
persons in respect of the conspiracy to commit the murder of
deceased Kiran Suryawanshi and prosecution has not
adduced/ produced convincing legal evidence in that respect
on record and, therefore, the said charge under Section 120B
of the Indian Penal Code also is short of worth believing against
accused Nos. 1 to 3 since the conviction and sentence inflicted
upon them by the trial Court shall not sustain for the reasons
mentioned hereinabove and we are also inclined to give benefit
of doubt to accused No. 1 in respect of charges levelled against
her under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Hence, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to accused
Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of charges levelled against them for
offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and also under Section 120B of the Indian penal
Code.
51. However, we are of the considered view that the conviction
and sentence rendered by learned trial Judge against the
accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code shall sustain
since there is incriminating evidence against them that they
knowingly caused the evidence of the commission of the offence
to disappear with the intention of screening them from legal
punishment and since while attempting to dispose of the dead
body of deceased Kiran Suryawanshi during the fateful night
between 14.2.2007 and 15.2.2007, they were accosted by
P.W.19 Rajendra Mohite while proceeding on motorcycle
carrying a bundle containing the dead body of deceased Kiran
Suryawanshi, in furtherance of their common intention and,
therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to accused
Nos. 2 and 3 in that respect deserves to be confirmed. In the
said context, it is material to note that the learned trial Court
has awarded sentence of R.I. for one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/, in default to suffer further R.I. for three months each
to accused Nos. 2 and 3 on the said count, but it is material to
note that the respondent/State has not filed any appeal for
enhancement regarding the said sentence.
52. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 61/2008 preferred by
accused No. 1 Monika Kiran Suryawanshi is allowed and
conviction and sentence inflicted upon her for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the
14
Indian Penal Code and Section 120B of the Indian penal Code
as well as Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code by judgment and order dated 07.02.2008 by learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 54/2007
stands quashed and set aside and the said accused No. 1
Monika Kiran Suryawanshi is acquitted of the said charges
and she be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other
case. Fine, if paid, be refunded to her.
53. Criminal Appeal No.72/2008 preferred by accused No. 2
Prakash Nagraj Patil and Criminal Appeal No. 332/2008
preferred by accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale
are partly allowed and conviction and sentence awarded to
them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated
7.2.2008 by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dhule in
Sessions Case No.54/2007 stands quashed and set aside and
the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the said charges.
Fine, if paid by them in that respect, be refunded to them.
However, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon accused
Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and
order dated 07.02.2008 by learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Dhule in Sessions Case No. 54/2007 stands confirmed and
appeal preferred by accused Nos. 2 and 3 stands dismissed to
that extent. Since accused Nos. 2 and 3 have undergone the
sentence of one year for the said conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, they be released forthwith if not required in
any other case.
54. We quantify the fees payable to Shri M.A. Tandale, learned
counsel appointed for accused No.3 in Criminal Appeal No.
332/2008, at Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only).”
….emphasis supplied.
15
ROLES AND STATUS OF THE ACCUSED
17. Admittedly, the deceased Kiran died homicidal death but the
moot issue for determination was whether the evidence brought by
the prosecution in support of its case is sufficient enough to establish
the link between the death of the deceased and the alleged offenders
accused persons. Needless to state that it is not sufficient enough for
the prosecution to submit before the Court that the death of the
deceased is homicidal but it is a duty of the prosecution to establish
its case against the accused persons with justifiable and legal
evidence so as to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Before evaluating the merits of the circumstantial evidence, it
is imperative to clearly delineate the alleged roles of the accused
persons, the deceased, and their legal status:
A. The Deceased (Kiran Suryawanshi): The victim of the
homicidal death, who was employed at ICICI Bank and was the
husband of accused no. 1.
B. Accused No. 1 (Monika Kiran Suryawanshi): She is the wife
of the deceased. Their marriage in 2001 was a love marriage, and
they resided together at plot no. 103, Shramsafalya Colony, Deopur,
with their daughter. The prosecution alleged that she had an
extramarital affair with accused no. 2, and pursuant to a conspiracy,
16
she administered sedative tablets and injections to her husband
before smashing his head with a grinding stone. She was convicted
by the Trial Court but entirely acquitted by the High Court of all
charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 201 read with Section 34
IPC.
C. Accused No. 2 (Prakash Nagraj Patil): A neighbour residing at
plot no. 104, Shramsafalya Colony, who allegedly had a love affair
with accused no. 1. The prosecution alleged he conspired with
accused no. 1 to commit the murder and was subsequently caught
red-handed transporting the victim’s dead body on a motorcycle. He
was acquitted by the High Court of the major charges of murder and
conspiracy (Sections 302 and 120B IPC) but was convicted for
causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 read with
Section 34 IPC, receiving a sentence of one year of rigorous
imprisonment. As he had already undergone this sentence, he was
directed to be released.
D. Accused No. 3 (Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale): A friend of
accused no. 2. He was alleged to be a co-conspirator who helped dig
a ditch near Nakane Dam to bury the body and was intercepted by
the police while riding pillion on the motorcycle carrying the
deceased’s body. Similar to accused no. 2, he was acquitted by the
17
High Court under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, but convicted under
Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Having served his one-year
sentence, he was released.
Accused No. 4 (Deepak Ramesh Patil):
E. Another friend of
accused no. 2, who was arrested later at Manas Hospital in
Aurangabad by Investigating Officer P.W.26 (PSI Govind
Tamhankar). He was alleged to have supplied the sedatives. He was
acquitted by the Trial Court of all charges, as the evidence regarding
the sedatives was thoroughly inconclusive. He is not a subject of the
present appeals.
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
19. The case of the prosecution rests entirely upon circumstantial
evidence, as there is no direct ocular witness to the murder of Kiran
Suryawanshi. In cases pivoting on circumstantial evidence, the law
is well-settled. As laid down by this Court in the landmark judgment
1
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , the
prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of
circumstances that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused,
excluding every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
1
1984 SCC (4) 116
18
circumstances must be conclusive in nature, establishing that the
accused, and the accused alone, is the perpetrator of the crime. We
find that the High Court correctly applied this standard in identifying
vital lacunae, infirmities, and deformities in the prosecution’s case.
20. If we consider the factual and legal points of the case at hand
then first of all we need to analyse the motive which is alleged to be
the extramarital affair between the accused nos. 1 and 2. The
prosecution posited that accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 were
engaged in an illicit romance, providing the motive for the conspiracy.
To prove this, reliance was placed heavily on the testimonies of
P.W.13 (Jitendra Neve) and P.W.18 (Lalit Bhavsar). P.W.13 testified
that accused no. 2 showed him a photograph of accused no. 1 on a
computer, boasting she was his lover. P.W.18 stated that accused
no. 2 asked him to hand over a gift packet to accused no. 1.
21. However, during cross-examination and legal scrutiny, this
motive severely flounders. The defence correctly argued that there is
absolutely no positive legal evidence on record to prove a reciprocal
love affair. At its highest, the evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.18 depicts
a one-sided infatuation harboured by accused no. 2 towards accused
no. 1. There is no cogent evidence proving that accused no. 1
reciprocated these feelings or harboured any animosity toward her
19
husband. Mere production of telephone records does not substitute
substantive proof of an illicit affair leading to murder. Thus, the
motive is inherently weak and insufficient to anchor a conviction for
murder.
(emphasis supplied)
The 'Last Seen' Theory
22. The prosecution examined P.W.25 (Rajendra Goswami), an
office colleague of the deceased, to establish that the victim was last
seen alive in his house with accused no. 1. P.W.25 claimed he
dropped the deceased at his residence between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00
p.m. on the fateful night of 14.02.2007, and waited until he went
inside.
23. The defence effectively rebutted this by pointing out the
unnatural conduct of P.W.25, there was no logical reason for him to
wait outside until the deceased entered the house, especially when
P.W.25 had his own scooter. Furthermore, accused no. 1, in her
statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, provided a highly probable
defence wherein she stated that her husband wished to attend a
party with friends (including accused no. 2) and left the house that
at night despite her opposition. Given the prosecution’s failure to
conclusively establish the exact time of the offence or the exact time
20
of death, the High Court rightly dismissed the “last seen” evidence of
P.W.25 as a weak type of evidence.
DIGITAL AND TELEPHONIC EVIDENCE
24. The prosecution sought to establish a conspiracy through call
detail records. It was alleged in the FIR that accused no. 1 called
accused no. 2 to her house after ensuring her husband was asleep.
However, the printout data directly contradicts the prosecution’s own
narrative.
25. The evidence reveals that the Reliance mobile phone (No.
9370534374) seized from accused no. 1 was actually registered in
the name of her mother, Surekhabai Walvi. Further, during the
house search panchnama (Exhibit 54), an Airtel mobile phone (No.
9860494427) belonging to the deceased was found inside the house.
This strongly supports the defence theory that the deceased forgot to
carry his mobile phones when he went out that night. Crucially, the
call logs showed incoming calls from accused no. 2’s phone to
accused no. 1’s phone, suggesting the deceased might have been
using accused no. 2’s phone to contact his own home. Most crucial
for the prosecution is the total absence of any outgoing call from
accused no. 1’s phone to accused no. 2’s phone on the night in
21
question. Therefore, the FIR’s claim that accused no. 1 summoned
accused no. 2 is a false contention unsupported by the digital trail.
Anomalies in Seizures, Recoveries, and the Murder Weapon
26. The most fatal blows to the prosecution’s case lie in the deeply
flawed investigation conducted by P.W.26 (PSI Govind Tamhankar).
The prosecution relied on the house search panchnama (Exhibit 54)
and the memorandum of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act (Exhibits 48, 94, and 95). At the behest of accused no. 1, the
police allegedly recovered a blood-stained grinding stone (allegedly
used for committing murder of accused), a syringe, broken glass, a
nighty, and a kurta.
27. Accused no. 1 vehemently challenged these recoveries, stating
in her Section 313 CrPC statement that the house search
panchnama was falsely prepared and that her signatures were taken
on blank papers. Notably, the search panchnama (Exhibit 54) did not
even bear her signature, raising grave suspicions. Furthermore, the
alleged recovery of the grinding stone and syringe (Exhibit 94) was
made from a dumping place near her house which is a public area
accessible to anyone, which heavily dilutes its evidentiary value.
28. On critical assessment of evidence, the High Court identified
massive lapses in the handling of the seized physical evidence. The
22
alleged articles seized from the house of accused no. 1 and at her
behest were not sealed at the spot. High Court was insisted in relying
2
on - Ashraf Hussain Shah v. State of Maharashtra , wherein
paragraph 14 clearly states that the prosecution must not only prove
that the articles were sealed upon seizure, but must also lead link
evidence to prove they were kept in a sealed condition until they
reached the Chemical Analyzer. This strict procedural requirement
is mandated to completely eliminate the suspicion that blood might
have been planted on the articles subsequent to recovery. In the
absence of seals, the Chemical Analyzer (CA) reports (Exhibits 50 and
56) connecting the blood group ‘A’ to the grinding stone and clothes
become highly doubtful and cannot be construed as incriminating
evidence. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the High
Court in para no. 17 of Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale v. State of
3
Maharashtra , a recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 without affixing lac seals holds absolutely no
evidentiary value.
29. This court in the case Salim Akhtar alias Mota v. State of
4
Uttar Pradesh , in support of the proposition held that if an article
2
1996 SCC OnLine Bom 683
3
1999 SCC OnLine Bom 227
4
(2003) 5 SCC 499
23
is not sealed, it raises doubt about factum of recovery. Furthermore,
P.W.1 (Dr. Ajit Patil), who performed the post-mortem, noted severe
head injuries, including a comminuted fracture of the frontal bone,
and opined that the injuries were caused by a heavy, blunt object
like a grinding stone. Yet, shockingly, no blood was found on the
mattresses, chaddar, or pillow in the house of accused no. 1. This
physical impossibility speaks volumes and entirely contradicts the
prosecution’s fundamental narrative that deceased Kiran
Suryawanshi was brutally bludgeoned to death in his bed.
THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY (SECTION 120B IPC)
30. To secure a conviction under Section 120B of the IPC, the
prosecution must establish a meeting of minds and an agreement to
commit an illegal act. As cited by the defence and held in Ashok
5
Hiralal Yadav v. State of Maharashtra at paragraph 9, once a
conspiracy is proved, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of
the other. However, the foundational prerequisite—the agreement
itself—must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence.
Here, the prosecution entirely failed to adduce any convincing legal
5
2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1281
24
evidence demonstrating that accused nos. 1, 2, and 3 hatched a pre-
planned conspiracy.
6
31. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu ( in para
no. 97, it was held as under:
“97. Mostly, conspiracies are proved by
circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom
an open affair. Usually both the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from
the circumstances and the conduct of the accused
(per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini case at p. 516). The well-
known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that
each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable evidence and "the
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events
from which the only irresistible conclusion about the
guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other
hypothesis against the guilt is possible" (Tanviben
Pankajkumar case, SCC p. 185, para 45). G.N. Ray,
J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar observed that this Court
should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal
proof.
32. Also, this Court in its judgment of Maghavendra Pratap
7
Singh Alias Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh , [to which
one of us Justice Sanjay Karol is a member] in para no. 33 held as
under:
“For the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section
120-B IPC, to be established, an agreement between
the parties to do an unlawful act must exist. In some
cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be
6
(2005) 11 SCC 600
7
(2024) 12 SCC 401
25
absent, but when the lack of evidence is apparent, it
is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section.
To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is
imperative to show a meeting of the minds between
the conspirators for the intended common object.”
33. Because the alleged motive of a love affair failed, the last-seen
theory collapsed, and the forensic evidence from the house was
fatally compromised by a lack of sealing, the chain of circumstances
to prove that accused no. 1 conspired with accused nos. 2 and 3 is
broken. Consequently, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit
of the doubt for the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, and
Section 120B IPC.
CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 201 IPC (ACCUSED NO. 2 & 3)
34. While the prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and
conspiracy, the circumstances surrounding the disposal of the body
present a distinctly different legal position for accused nos. 2 and 3.
35. The evidence of P.W.19 (Police Constable Rajendra Mohite) is
pivotal. On the intervening night of 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2007, at
approximately 5:00 a.m., P.W.19 was returning home when he
intercepted accused nos. 2 and 3 riding a motorcycle near the
Panchayat Samiti Office. He noticed a suspicious bundle kept
between them and observed a human foot protruding from it. When
26
questioned, accused nos. 2 and 3 gave evasive replies but eventually
disclosed their identities as Prakash Nagraj Patil and Dnyaneshwar
Gangaram Mahale.
36.
P.W.19 immediately summoned his colleagues, including
P.W.22 (PSI Sharad Kulkarni), who was on patrol. P.W.22 opened the
bundle and discovered the dead body of Kiran Suryawanshi wrapped
in a plastic bag and bedsheet, with his hands tied. Furthermore,
upon examining the motorcycle (which was hired from their friend
P.W.17 Rahul Jagdale), the police found blood stains on the silencer
plate. The CA report confirmed that the blood on the silencer was of
blood group ‘A’, matching the deceased.
37. Accused nos. 2 and 3 were caught red-handed. The physical
reality of them transporting the deceased victim’s tied body at 5:00
a.m. undeniably establishes that they knowingly caused the evidence
of the commission of an offence to disappear with the explicit
intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment.
Therefore, the High Court was entirely correct in its considered view
that the conviction and sentence awarded to accused nos. 2 and 3
for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of
the IPC must be sustained. The Trial Court had awarded them a
27
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.
1000/- each, which they have already undergone.
CONCLUSION
38. In light of the exhaustive analysis above, we find no error in the
well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. The prosecution’s case
against the accused for murder and conspiracy, resting entirely on
circumstantial evidence, suffers from vital lacunae, specifically the
failure to establish a motive, the unreliability of the ‘last seen’
witness, contradictory telephonic records, the devastating failure to
seal recovered articles at the spot, and the complete absence of blood
in the bedroom where the brutal murder supposedly occurred. The
chain of circumstances is broken, and the hypothesis of guilt is not
exclusively established.
39. Accordingly, the acquittal of accused no. 1 (Monika Kiran
Suryawanshi), accused no. 2 (Prakash Nagraj Patil), and accused no.
3 (Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale) for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 120B IPC is
hereby upheld and sustained.
40. Furthermore, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon
accused nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 201 read with
Section 34 IPC is also confirmed. As accused nos. 2 and 3 have
28
already undergone the sentence of one year for the said conviction,
their release, as directed by the High Court, requires no interference.
41. The appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra are devoid
of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
........................................J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 13, 2026.
29