Summary: On December 24, 2025, the Bombay High Court found three men not guilty who were earlier found guilty of a serious murder and rape in Sangli, Maharashtra. The court noticed big gaps in the evidence, which led to their release.
In October 2012, a young woman was discovered dead in a well near Sangli. She had been missing since October 12. The police arrested Lakhya Sargar, Anuj Pawar, and Dadaso Athawale, who were found guilty in 2019 for murder, rape, and destroying evidence. However, Sagar Hattekar, another person accused, died during the trial.
The appeals were heard by Judges Suman Shyam and Shyam C. Chandak. On December 24, 2025, they overturned the guilty verdicts, saying there wasn't enough solid evidence and there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Lack of Reason: The supposed romantic relationship between the victim and Lakhya Sargar was not convincingly shown. The court noted that the suggested reason for the crime was weak.
Untrustworthy Witnesses: Statements from key witnesses were found to be inconsistent and unreliable. For example, Sandeep Shinde's claim of seeing the accused with the victim was not believable because he reported it late.
Suspicious Evidence: The finding of items like condoms and a liquor bottle at the crime scene was considered suspicious. The police had searched the area before without finding these items, which raised doubts about how they were found.
DNA and Forensic Issues: DNA tests did not definitively connect the accused to the crime. The forensic evidence was considered not strong enough to support the charges of rape and murder.
The court stressed that the prosecution failed to provide a continuous chain of evidence pointing to Lakhya Sargar, Anuj Pawar, and Dadaso Athawale's guilt. The judges highlighted the need for strong evidence over mere suspicion, giving the accused the benefit of the doubt.
Lakhya Sargar, Anuj Pawar, and Dadaso Athawale, who had been in custody at Kolhapur Central Prison, were ordered to be released immediately unless needed for other cases. They were also asked to sign a promise to appear in court in the future if required.
This case highlights the critical role of thorough and unbiased investigations in the justice system, ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence rather than guesses.
