Mumbai: Panvel court acquits two accused in 2012 Chinchavali farmhouse murder case

Chandrakant Waghmare (hooded), the prime accused in the case, who died during the course of the trial. FILE PIC

Nearly fourteen years after four men were murdered at a Chinchavali farmhouse, the Panvel additional sessions court has acquitted the two surviving accused, Ramdas Govind Patil, 42, and Surendrakumar Rajmani Shukla, 59, citing a lack of evidence.

In his recent judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Santosh R Chavan held that the prosecution failed to establish a criminal conspiracy, firearm supply chain, or involvement in charges including murder, cheating, and Arms Act violations.

Proceedings against two other co-accused, Chandrakant Waghmare and Sanjay Khutle, were abated following their deaths during trial.

Discovery of bodies

According to the prosecution, complainant Dattatray Nago Patil owned the three-and-a-half-acre Patil Farm in Chinchavali, managed by watchman Ladku Durge.

On November 10, 2012, Dattatray gave the keys to his cousin, Ramdas Patil, for land-related dealings. Three days later, Dattatray received a call from Ramdas, who handed the phone to an unknown Marathi-speaking man who expressed interest in buying the property.

The next day, after finding his cousin's phone switched off, the family sent the watchman's son, Baliram, to check the property. Baliram discovered a scene of horrific bloodshed, prompting Dattatray's sons to rush to the site.

Outside near the parked vehicles, Ramdas lay dead from stone strikes. Inside the hall, three other men - Balaram Tople, Nitin Joshi, and Pritham Gharat - were found dead with fatal gunshot wounds to the head.

Alleged scheme

Investigators alleged that prime accused Waghmare lured the victims by promising a "money-rain" scheme that would turn Rs 1 lakh into crores. Waghmare persuaded them to bring large sums of cash to the farmhouse, which he seized before the killings.

Police later claimed to recover Rs 2.99 lakh, clothing, a motorcycle, and the keys based on Waghmare's statement. However, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to link the surviving accused to the fraud scheme or the murders.

Unproved allegation

A central part of the prosecution's case relied on the alleged movement of the country-made pistol among the accused.

The state claimed Shukla supplied the weapon to Khutle, who passed it to Ramdas Govind Patil, who then handed it to Waghmare to commit the murders. The prosecution argued that despite Waghmare's death during trial, the collected evidence sufficiently proved the surviving duo's role in the supply chain.

The defence countered that no evidence linked the surviving accused to the weapon transfer or the murders, asserting the state failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Upon evaluating the material, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged chain of firearm transfers or prove the surviving accused's involvement in the killings.

Witnesses examined

The prosecution examined three witnesses: complainant Dattatray Patil, who described the farmhouse, handover of its keys and discovery of the bodies; Dr Bhushan Jain, who conducted the post-mortems; and investigating officer Sunil Bajare, who detailed the probe and seizures allegedly linked to a statement by the deceased prime accused.

Medical evidence established that Tople, Joshi and Gharat died of gunshot injuries to the head, while Ramdas Patil died of injuries caused by a stone. However, the court held that proving the deaths were homicidal did not establish the surviving accused's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The surviving accused

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove charges under the IPC, Arms Act and Mumbai Police Act against either surviving accused, acquitting both under Section 235(1) of the CrPC.

Their bail bonds were cancelled, but each was directed under Section 437-A to furnish a Rs 50,000 personal bond and surety to ensure their appearance before a higher court, if required.

The judgment concludes the trial against the two surviving accused, with the court finding insufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the four murders or related offences.

Police Speak

Bala Kumbhar, Senior PI, Panvel City police
‘We will go through the order copy and consult our police prosecutor, and only then I will be able to make any comment on this matter.'

Rashmi Nandedkar, DCP (Zone III, Panvel)
‘I am yet to get the court order, I will study the same and then decide on the further course of action.'