Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case

“Suspicion, Howsoever Grave, Cannot Replace Proof”, Bombay High Court, Bench of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Sandipkumar C. More, delivered a reportable judgment. The Court upheld the conviction of Pradeep Kokate for murder, extortion, conspiracy and arms offences, but acquitted Divya @ Hema Bhatiya, the widow of the deceased, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court for conspiracy and destruction of evidence.

The decision re-examined key issues of admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the evidentiary value of a test identification parade, and the threshold required to establish conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

“Prosecution Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt That Pradeep Fired the Fatal Shot”

The Court confirmed that the killing was homicidal, caused by a single firearm injury to the chest of the deceased. Eyewitness Rakesh Fuldahale placed Pradeep at the spot of the crime with a pistol in hand moments before and after the gunshot. Despite defence criticism of delay, the test identification parade conducted by a Judicial Magistrate was upheld as trustworthy.

The ballistic expert’s report proved conclusive. The Court observed: “It was revealed that the test fired bullets and the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased were fired from the same pistol… the prosecution has conclusively established the guilt of accused, which is proved beyond all reasonable doubts.”

The Bench found the ransom calls and threatening SMSs, corroborated by certified CDRs, sufficient to prove motive and participation. Accordingly, Pradeep’s conviction under Section 302 IPC, Section 387 IPC, Section 120-B IPC and provisions of the Arms Act was sustained.

“Certificates under Section 65-B Satisfied All Preconditions”: Court on Electronic Evidence

One of the central arguments was that Call Data Records (CDRs) lacked compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The defence contended that the certificates were incomplete and belated.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held:

“Considering the evidence and perusal of the certificates, it is evident that the prosecution has followed all the preconditions mentioned in Section 65-B… the electronic records pertaining to CDR and SDR are very much admissible in the evidence without further proof.”

This ruling reaffirmed that properly certified CDRs could form a reliable foundation for convicting an accused, even where SIM cards were purchased under fictitious names.

“Suspicion Alone Cannot Convict”: Divya Acquitted of Conspiracy

The trial court had convicted Divya, the deceased’s wife, for conspiracy and for destruction of evidence, based largely on her alleged illicit affair with Pradeep and the suggestion that she had provided him money. The High Court found this reasoning unsustainable.

The Bench emphatically noted: “Except the fact of illicit relations between the appellants, there is no other evidence on record in respect of conduct of appellant Divya, which could establish that she, in fact, played some active role… It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the proof.”

Her alleged confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC was held inadmissible since it was recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate, not a Judicial Magistrate. Call records said to prove communication between her and Pradeep were discarded for lack of valid certification.

The Court granted her benefit of doubt, setting aside her conviction under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC.

“Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship”

The Bench carefully distinguished between an illicit affair and a legally provable conspiracy. It held that while secrecy is inherent in conspiracies, mere inferences without concrete acts attributable to the accused cannot justify conviction.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judges remarked: “Only inference is not sufficient. Some more material or evidence is required by the prosecution to support such theory. Suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction.”

Thus, while affirming Pradeep’s guilt, the Court exonerated Divya of all charges.

This judgment underscores two vital principles of criminal law: that properly certified electronic evidence can decisively sustain a conviction, and that conspiracy cannot be presumed merely from illicit relationships or suspicion without overt acts.

By upholding Pradeep’s life sentence and simultaneously acquitting Divya, the High Court balanced the weight of evidence with the golden thread of criminal jurisprudence—proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Date of Decision: 4 September 2025