IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIMPARI

DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Present: Sh. Kapuganti Bharath

Sessions Judge, Chimpari District

Criminal Case No. ___ of 2025

Under Sections 103, 105, 326, 117 & 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

IN THE MATTER OF
State of maharashtra
…Prosecution

VERSUS

1. Prakash Sharma
2. Ratan
3. Suraj
4. Mohan
5. Babu
…Accused Persons

Advocates Appearing:
For the State: Ms. Kratika Singh Dhaked, & Ms. Priyadarshini Baruah
For the Accused: Adv. Adrija Das & Adv. Akanksha
 PROSECUTION WRITTEN STATEMENT

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused persons — Prakash
Sharma, Ratan, Suraj, Mohan and Babu — did, on or about 7th July 2025, act in
furtherance of a common intention to assault and murder Mahesh Yadav, a resident of
Chimpari Village. The deceased had borrowed ₹1,00,000 from Prakash Sharma in 2023
for his daughter’s marriage. The evidence establishes that on 3rd July 2025, Prakash
Sharma, along with the other accused, visited Mahesh’s house armed with lathis and
threatened him to repay the loan within three days, failing which he would be “taught a
lesson.”
2. On the morning of 7th July 2025, the deceased was found lying unconscious near the
railway gate of Chimpari. He was taken to Shanti Hospital by his son Deepak and railway
guard Govind, where he succumbed to injuries at approximately 4:00 PM. The
postmortem report (Exhibit P-2) conducted by Dr. Arvind Mehta confirmed that Mahesh
Yadav died of hemorrhage and shock caused by two stab injuries to the chest, each
individually insufficient to cause death but collectively fatal.
3. The prosecution submits that this sequence of events demonstrates clear premeditation on
the part of the accused. The threats issued on 3rd July, coupled with the assault occurring
exactly three days later, show a deliberate plan executed by the accused in pursuance of
their unlawful demand for repayment.
4. During investigation, the Investigating Officer Sandeep Kumar recovered three knives
from bushes along Mohan’s trail. The forensic report (Exhibit P-7) confirmed that two of
these knives bore bloodstains matching the DNA of the deceased, establishing direct
physical linkage between the weapons and the offence. Though the knives did not contain
identifiable fingerprints, the chain of recovery and matching bloodstains strongly
corroborate the prosecution’s version.
5. The CCTV footage (Exhibit P-8) obtained from a nearby ATM captured four persons
moving quickly away from the crime scene immediately after the estimated time of
assault. The footage, together with the statements of witnesses Deepak Yadav and Meena
Devi, confirms that these were the same individuals who had threatened the deceased
days earlier.
6. The prosecution further relies upon the extra-judicial confession made by accused Mohan,
who voluntarily admitted during custodial interrogation that he and the other accused had
 attacked Mahesh Yadav under the instruction of Prakash Sharma. This confession,
corroborated by forensic and circumstantial evidence, demonstrates the existence of a
common intention among all accused under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
7. Motive is clearly established through the loan account books (Exhibit P-11) seized from
Prakash Sharma, showing an outstanding balance of ₹1,00,000 owed by the deceased. As
held in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar1, motive may be inferred from surrounding
circumstances and prior conduct. The accused’s earlier threats and recovery of
incriminating documents create a compelling motive for the assault that led to Mahesh’s
death.
8. It is the prosecution’s case that the acts of the accused collectively constitute the offence
of culpable homicide amounting to murder, punishable under Section 103 of the BNS,
2023, read with Section 105 (common intention). The evidence demonstrates that the
assault with sharp-edged weapons was targeted at a vital part of the body and carried out
with full knowledge that death was a likely consequence.
9. In the alternative, and without prejudice, even if the Hon’ble Court finds that the requisite
intention to cause death is not proved beyond doubt, the prosecution submits that the
accused are still liable under Section 326 of the BNS, 2023 for voluntarily causing
grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, and under Section 117 for unlawful assembly with
common intention.
10. The presence of multiple accused armed with weapons, their coordinated threats, and
subsequent disappearance from the scene establish that they were acting together in
pursuit of a shared criminal objective.
11. The confession of Mohan, the medical report, forensic findings, CCTV evidence, and
eyewitness testimony of Deepak Yadav and Meena Devi collectively form an unbroken
chain of circumstances pointing solely to the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence of
any third party involvement or accidental cause.
12. The prosecution also relies upon the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v.
Balram Bama Patil2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if individual
injuries are not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, the intention and manner
of attack can still render the act culpable as murder or attempt to murder. The present case
satisfies both ingredients—intention and execution.

1
Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 236
2
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28
13. The defence is likely to plead an alibi for Prakash Sharma based on hotel records and
guest statements. However, the prosecution submits that the alleged alibi is false and
contrived. The hotel register only confirms check-in, not continuous presence.
Furthermore, Vimla Devi (wife of Prakash Sharma) herself stated that her husband
returned home early morning and confessed, “I have finished him off today.” This
statement serves as an incriminating admission, further eroding the credibility of the alibi.
14. Therefore, considering the threats, motive, recovery of weapons, forensic matches,
confession, and corroborative testimony, the prosecution respectfully submits that all
accused are guilty of acting with common intention to cause the death of Mahesh Yadav.
Their conduct satisfies the ingredients of Sections 103, 105, 326, 117, and 351 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
15. In view of the above facts, circumstances, and legal principles, it is humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to convict the accused persons — Prakash Sharma, Ratan,
Suraj, Mohan, and Babu — under Section 103 (Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder)
read with Section 105 (Common Intention), or in the alternative, under Section 326
(Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons) and Section 117 (Unlawful
Assembly) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)
Sandeep Kumar
Public Prosecutor, State of Maharashtra