IRB jawan gets life term for 2018's triple murder in Daund
2
3
Pune: Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) jawan Sanjay Shinde (43) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs2 lakh by the court of additional sessions judge BP Kshirsagar on Tuesday.
Shinde had gunned down three men with his service revolver over a personal and financial dispute in Daund under Pune rural on Jan 16, 2018.
IRB is a paramilitary force within the state armed police force.
The court also sentenced Shinde to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs1 lakh for the offence under section 409 (misappropriation of property) of the Indian Penal Code. If the total fine of Rs3 lakh is deposited, then 80% of it would be given to the legal representatives of the deceased and the remaining 20% would be credited to the govt.
In his 53-page judgement, Kshirsagar observed that on the basis of direct, scientific and circumstantial evidence, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Shinde, then in charge of the armoury, obtained a service pistol, two magazines and 22 rounds. He shot dead Gopal Shinde (32) and Parshuram Shinde (32), both of Wadarwadi, and Anil Jadhav (26) of Kurkumbh Road in full public view at Nagarmori Chowk and Jijamatanagar in Daund.
The prosecution's case was that the jawan, who was on a scooter, fled after the murders. He was caught by Pune rural police at Supa village on the Pune-Ahilyanagar highway soon after the incident. He was lodged in judicial custody at the Yerawada Central Prison since then.
The judge relied on the testimony of doctors, post-mortem reports and inquest panchnamas to show that the victims died due to firearm injuries in a homicidal attempt.
On the allegations of the defence that the jawan was wrongly implicated, the Kshirsagar said, "There is nothing on record to show that witness Gajanan Shinde, brother of victims Gopal and Parshuram, would allow the real offender to escape and falsely implicate the jawan.
The instant reaction of a witness is to name the culprit who committed the crime."
On analysing the prosecution's evidence, Kshirsagar said even the accused did not assign any amicus to falsely implicate him.
The scientific evidence in the form of call detail records proved his presence at the crime scene.
Additional public prosecutor Rajesh Kavediya pleaded for capital punishment in the case, but the court said it did not fall within the ambit of the rarest of rare cases as defined by the Supreme Court to mandate a death sentence.
Kavediya relied on testimonies of 32 witnesses and appreciated the significant role played by officer Vidyadhar Nischit in securing the presence of a ballistic expert from the US via video conference and other witnesses from Daund and Baramati to prove the guilt of the accused.
The chargesheet in the case was transferred from the Baramati sessions court to the Pune court to expedite the trial after considering the law and order situation and threat perception received by the accused, he added.
Shinde was attached to the IRB battalion in Kolhapur and was stationed at the SRPF camp in Daund at the time of the incident.
Pune: Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) jawan Sanjay Shinde (43) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs2 lakh by the court of additional sessions judge BP Kshirsagar on Tuesday.
Shinde had gunned down three men with his service revolver over a personal and financial dispute in Daund under Pune rural on Jan 16, 2018.
IRB is a paramilitary force within the state armed police force.
The court also sentenced Shinde to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs1 lakh for the offence under section 409 (misappropriation of property) of the Indian Penal Code. If the total fine of Rs3 lakh is deposited, then 80% of it would be given to the legal representatives of the deceased and the remaining 20% would be credited to the govt.
In his 53-page judgement, Kshirsagar observed that on the basis of direct, scientific and circumstantial evidence, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Shinde, then in charge of the armoury, obtained a service pistol, two magazines and 22 rounds. He shot dead Gopal Shinde (32) and Parshuram Shinde (32), both of Wadarwadi, and Anil Jadhav (26) of Kurkumbh Road in full public view at Nagarmori Chowk and Jijamatanagar in Daund.
The prosecution's case was that the jawan, who was on a scooter, fled after the murders. He was caught by Pune rural police at Supa village on the Pune-Ahilyanagar highway soon after the incident. He was lodged in judicial custody at the Yerawada Central Prison since then.
The judge relied on the testimony of doctors, post-mortem reports and inquest panchnamas to show that the victims died due to firearm injuries in a homicidal attempt.
On the allegations of the defence that the jawan was wrongly implicated, the Kshirsagar said, "There is nothing on record to show that witness Gajanan Shinde, brother of victims Gopal and Parshuram, would allow the real offender to escape and falsely implicate the jawan.
The instant reaction of a witness is to name the culprit who committed the crime."
On analysing the prosecution's evidence, Kshirsagar said even the accused did not assign any amicus to falsely implicate him.
The scientific evidence in the form of call detail records proved his presence at the crime scene.
Additional public prosecutor Rajesh Kavediya pleaded for capital punishment in the case, but the court said it did not fall within the ambit of the rarest of rare cases as defined by the Supreme Court to mandate a death sentence.
Kavediya relied on testimonies of 32 witnesses and appreciated the significant role played by officer Vidyadhar Nischit in securing the presence of a ballistic expert from the US via video conference and other witnesses from Daund and Baramati to prove the guilt of the accused.
The chargesheet in the case was transferred from the Baramati sessions court to the Pune court to expedite the trial after considering the law and order situation and threat perception received by the accused, he added.
Shinde was attached to the IRB battalion in Kolhapur and was stationed at the SRPF camp in Daund at the time of the incident.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC tells Bhupesh Baghel, son to move HC, flags rich bypassing process
The Supreme Court on Monday censured the practice of affluent persons coming to it directly seeking reliefs in criminal cases as it asked former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son to go to the high court in cases probed by central investigating agencies. The matters relate to the alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh and other cases. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the father and son duo why should the top court go into their pleas against FIR, arrest and remand and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provisions. The top court asked why did the petitioners not move the high court, which too were constitutional courts and could adjudicate the issue. "This is the problem we are facing. Why can't the high court decide the issue otherwise what is the use of having those courts? This is the new trend, when an affluent person approaches the Supreme Court, we start changing our directions. If this keeps on happening, then ordinary persons and their ordinary lawyers will not have a space in the Supreme Court," the bench said. Bhupesh Baghel and Chitanya Baghel in separate pleas moved the top court challenging coercive action by probe agencies and provisions of the PMLA. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, said "this phenomenon of arrest" was happening across the country and investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate was filing piecemeal chargesheets and implicating anybody and arresting everybody. "This cannot go on. People are not named in the FIR or initial chargesheets but suddenly their names crop up in supplementary chargesheet and the person is arrested," Sibal, representing the former chief minister, said. Singhvi, appearing for Baghel's son, said his client was not named in two-three chargesheets but his house was raided all of a sudden in March and he was subsequently arrested after his name featured in one of the supplementary chargesheets. Sibal argued the ED was acting in violation of the law laid down by the top court in its 2022 verdict, which upheld its power to arrest. As a result, Sibal said, the plea challenged the validity of Section 50 and 63 of the PMLA dealing with power of authorities to summon persons, compel the production of documents and record evidence during investigations and punishment for giving false statements. The bench asked if ED was not following the law or deviated from the procedure, did anyone bring it to court's notice or challenge the actions of the probe agencies. The bench said the apex court has previously held that further probe after filing of the chargesheet could only happen with the permission of the court. "There are instances where law can be valid but the action can be invalid," the bench said and asked both the petitioners to bring the facts to the notice of the high court. The bench pointed out the "intertwined" nature of facts in the pleas, making it difficult to segregate them. On the challenge to Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA, the bench said both petitioners could file fresh writ petitions and the court would hear them with the pending matters. The top court then allowed them to move the high court, which was asked to accord them expeditious hearing. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju said the former CM was no body to the litigation as he was not named in the FIR or the chargesheet in any of the cases but he still moved the apex court. When Justice Bagchi asked Raju to make a statement that he wouldn't be booked or arrested in future, Raju refused to make any such statement at the moment and said everything depended on the investigation. Justice Bagchi told Raju, "Then you are not clear. We cannot leave a citizen's liberty at lurch. He has a right to challenge the provisions." Investigation agencies including the CBI and ED are probing several cases including coal scam, liquor scam, Mahadev betting app cases, Rice mills cases and DMF scam cases, which allegedly happened during the tenure of Bhupesh Baghel as the chief minister. In July, Chaitanya was arrested in a money laundering case related to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
SC agrees to hear plea by Bhupesh Baghel on ‘self-incrimination' provisions in PMLA
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) agreed to examine a plea by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel claiming specific provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were violating an accused person's fundamental rights against self-incrimination and to maintain silence under questioning by an investigating agency. 'Section 50 and 63 of the PMLA are unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The framework under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act infringes the fundamental rights against self incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The provisions permit the ED to summon any person, compel answers and production of documents under a threat of penalty,' the petition said. A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant agreed to list Mr. Baghel's plea challenging Section 50 and 63 along with a batch of petitions challenging various provisions of the 2002 Act. These petitions are scheduled to be heard on August 6. Separate petitions rejected But the top court refused to entertain separate petitions filed by Mr. Baghel and his son, Chaitanya Baghel, who was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case on July 18, challenging the 'piecemeal investigations' being carried out by the ED. They contended that the probe has become a source of harassment. The Baghels, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi along with advocate Vipin Nair, said the prosecution in the liquor case was systematically misusing Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 'These provisions, which permit 'further investigation' without adequate procedural safeguards, confer unfettered discretion on investigating agencies, enabling arbitrary and prolonged investigations that violate the fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty, and fair trial under Articles 14, 20, and 21,' the petitions submitted. Similarly, Section 44 of the PMLA, which merely deals with the procedural aspects concerning the cognisance and trial of offences before the special court, cannot be used to confer the ED with substantive powers of 'further investigation'. 'The ED is illegally and arbitrarily exercising its power despite having no express authority under the PMLA to conduct 'further investigation' in several cases and filing incomplete or piecemeal prosecution complaints, resulting in arbitrary detention, harassment, and grave violation of fundamental rights,' Mr. Bhupesh Baghel argued. In his petition, Mr. Baghel referred to 12 FIRs and multiple chargesheets against specific individuals filed between July 2024 and June 2025 in the liquor scam case. 'This indicates a deliberate strategy to prolong proceedings and circumvent statutory protections, violating the principle that investigations pertain to the offence, not the offender,' it submitted. The Bench asked the Baghels to approach the State High Court and raise their apprehensions about the 'continuous, endless litigation' in the case. The court requested the High Court to hear the Baghels' case expeditiously.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
10 bombs recovered last year in Delhi's Holambi Kalan safely disposed of
Ten country-made bombs recovered last year from the Holambi Kalan area were safely disposed of by the Bomb Disposal Squad (BDS) and National Security Guard (NSG) on Monday, an official said. The disposal was crucial to prevent any potential threat and ensure public safety, the officer said.(Sourced) According to police, the explosives were recovered in connection with an FIR registered under section 286 (negligent conduct concerning explosive substances) of the Indian Penal Code and sections of the Explosive Substances Act at the Narela Industrial Area police station. After their recovery, the bombs were securely buried in a designated plot of land in Holambi Kalan as a precautionary measure. "A formal request was sent to the concerned agencies for their safe disposal. In response, teams from the NSG, BDS outer-north police, and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Rohini reached the site," said the officer. Following established safety protocols and standard operating procedures (SOPs), the BDS and NSG teams thoroughly inspected the site and carried out the neutralisation process. "All 10 bombs were successfully disposed of without any untoward incident," said the officer. The disposal was crucial to prevent any potential threat and ensure public safety, the officer said. Further investigation in the case is underway.
