Case Summary: Deepak Madhu Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra (2026) | Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Bombay High Court, in Deepak Madhu Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, delivered a significant judgment reiterating the foundational principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, the limited evidentiary value of confessions recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS), and the mandatory duty of courts under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) to confront the accused with all incriminating material. Setting aside a life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

Title of the Case: Deepak Madhu Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:2741-DB

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Judges: Justice Manjusha Deshpande and Justice Manish Pitale

Date of Judgment: 19 January 2026

Factual Background

The appellant, Deepak Madhu Waghmare, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, for the murder of his wife, Sundar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 103 BNS) and sentenced to life imprisonment. According to the prosecution, the appellant and his wife were earlier residing at the village Sangade while working near Adlabs Imagica. The deceased allegedly worked as a domestic help for one Appanna Reddy.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant suspected his wife of having an illicit relationship with Appanna Reddy and doubted the paternity of their child. Due to these suspicions, frequent quarrels allegedly took place between the couple. On the night of 15 August 2017, it was alleged that the appellant assaulted his wife with a sickle, causing fatal injuries.

Information regarding the incident was given to the police by one Govind Sonu Chavan, following which FIR No. 174 of 2017 was registered at Khopoli Police Station. The investigation led to the seizure of a sickle from the spot and the alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes of the accused. A confessional statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS). Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, culminating in a conviction by the trial court.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution examined six witnesses:

1. PW-1 (Panch Witness) – to prove the spot panchnama and recovery of articles
2. PW-2 (Nephew of the deceased) – for recovery of clothes of the deceased
3. PW-3 (Neighbour) – a chance witness
4. PW-4 (Labour contractor) – to establish motive
5. PW-5 (Medical Officer) – who conducted the post-mortem
6. PW-6 (Investigating Officer) – to prove the investigation and seizures

The prosecution relied on three foundational circumstances:

• Motive arising from alleged infidelity.
• Recovery of weapon and blood-stained clothes.
• Confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS).

Appellant’s Submissions

The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds:

• The case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain was incomplete.
• Motive was not proved, as PW-4 had no direct knowledge of any illicit relationship or quarrels.
• The informant and the first person who saw the deceased were not examined, creating a serious gap in the prosecution's case.
• The recovery of clothes was from an open place, making it unreliable.
• The forensic evidence was weak, with no blood detected on the alleged weapon.
• The confessional statement was involuntary, and the accused had indicated coercion.
• Crucially, the accused was not confronted with the confessional statement during the Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) examination, causing serious prejudice.

Submissions of the Respondent

The State contended that:

• Motive was established through PW-4 and the confession.
• The recovery of clothes and weapon corroborated the prosecution's case.
• The confessional statement was voluntary and recorded following due procedure.
• Blood of the deceased was found on the accused’s clothes, connecting him to the crime.

Issues for Determination

The High Court framed the core issues as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether motive for the offence was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS) could be relied upon as substantive evidence.
   
4. Whether non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) vitiated the trial.
   

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

1. Principles Governing Circumstantial Evidence

The Court reiterated the classic five-fold test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, holding that circumstances must be fully proved, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, and must exclude every hypothesis of innocence. Any missing link entitles the accused to acquittal.

2. Failure to Prove Motive

The Court found that PW-4, the sole witness relied upon to establish motive, lacked personal knowledge. He admitted in cross-examination that:

• He never lived in the same chawl.
• He never saw the deceased working with Appanna Reddy.
• He never witnessed quarrels between the couple.

The Court held that suspicion cannot substitute proof, and failure to prove motive in a circumstantial case weighs heavily in favour of the accused.

3. Unreliable Recoveries and Forensic Gaps

The recovery of clothes from an open and accessible place diminished its evidentiary value. The Court also noted:

• Inconsistencies in the timings of panchnamas.
• Absence of blood on the alleged murder weapon as per the FSL report.
• Failure to examine carriers of samples, breaking the chain of custody.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that forensic reports are only corroborative and cannot independently sustain a conviction.

4. Confessional Statement under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS)

The Court made a crucial clarification:

• A confession under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence.
• It can only be used for corroboration, not as the sole basis for conviction.
• The Sessions Court erred in treating the confession as proof of motive and guilt.

The High Court relied on Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, emphasising that voluntariness, reliability, and corroboration are essential.

5. Fatal Non-Compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS)

One of the most decisive findings was that the accused was never confronted with his alleged confession during the Section 313 CrPC examination. The Court held:

• Each incriminating circumstance must be put to the accused distinctly.
• Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and fair trial.
• Such omission causes serious prejudice and vitiates the conviction.

Relying on Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, the Court held that unput incriminating material must be eschewed altogether.

Final Holding

The Bombay High Court concluded that:

• The prosecution failed to establish motive.
• The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.
• The confessional statement was wrongly relied upon.
• The trial was vitiated due to a violation of Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS).
  

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the immediate release of the appellant, subject to execution of a bond under Section 437A CrPC (now Section 480 BNSS).

The Bombay High Court set aside the murder conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. It ruled that the motive was not established, the confession under Section 164 CrPC (now Section 183 BNSS) was wrongly relied upon, and the accused was not properly examined under Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS), resulting in a violation of fair trial safeguards.