Bombay High Court: Evidence against Andure ‘extremely weak’, eyewitnesses did not identify his photograph

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The court noted that the witness identified Sachin Andure in court for the first time in March 2022. | Photo Credit: Vivek Bendre

The court observed that the two eyewitnesses identified Sachin Andure in court after a gap of eight years and seven months and nine years and three months, respectively, and had not identified his photograph during the investigation. The bench also noted that the extra-judicial confession was made after five years and lacked corroboration.

The Bombay High Court, while granting bail to Sachin Andure in the murder case of rationalist Dr Narendra Dabholkar, made a series of observations on the quality of evidence presented against him. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale recorded that the identification of Andure by the two key witnesses was “extremely weak” and that the extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was another “extremely weak piece of evidence”.

The court noted that the witness identified Andure in court for the first time in March 2022, about eight years and seven months after the incident on August 20, 2013. Another witness identified him in November 2022, after nine years and three months. Both witnesses, during the investigation, had identified only the photograph of co-accused Sharad Kalaskar and not that of Andure. The court stated that the photographs were shown to them on December 25, 2018, and December 27, 2018, respectively, and that no test identification parade was conducted.

The bench further examined the evidence of extra-judicial confession made by Andure before witness Somnath Dhayade. The court observed that Mr. Dhayade disclosed this confession to the CBI on August 23, 2018, more than five years after the alleged confession, and significantly, five days after Andure’s arrest on August 18, 2018. The court also noted that the CBI officer who recorded wintess’ statement was not examined, and that one Devdikar, to whom had purportedly shared the information, was also not examined. The bench found no corroboration for this testimony.

The court also drew attention to a ballistics report (Exhibit-495) which indicated that the bullets recovered from the body of Dr Dabholkar matched with a country-made pistol seized from two other suspects, Khandelwal and Nagori, who were arrested on the day of the incident but later released through a closure report under Section 169 of the CrPC. The bench noted that the investigating agency offered no explanation for this discrepancy.

The bench compared Andure’s case with that of co-convict Sharad Kalaskar, who was granted bail pending appeal by another division bench on April 29, 2026. The court observed that in Kalaskar’s case, the eyewitnesses had identified his photograph, whereas in Andure’s case, they had not. The only additional evidence against Andure was the extra-judicial confession, which the court found to be very weak.

The court concluded that there were fair chances of Andure’s acquittal in his appeal.