A Mumbai Sessions Court has convicted Yogesh Ramakant Shenoy for murdering his mother Lalita Ramakant Shenoy in FIR No. 389 of 2018 registered at MHB Colony Police Station, Mumbai, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Additional Sessions Judge Shri M. Mohiuddin M. A. delivered the verdict on February 24, 2026 in Sessions Case No. 144 of 2019 (arising out of C.C. No. 6800788/PW/2019) at the Court of Sessions, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon (East), Mumbai.
The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, MHB Colony Police Station, prosecuted the case. APP P. S. Rathod represented the prosecution. Advocate Shashikant Damodarlal Chandak represented the accused through legal aid.
Case Background
The incident took place on the night of November 29, 2018, at Room No. 6, Pitruchhaya Chawl, Lad Wadi, Bhikaji Lad Road, Dahisar (West), Mumbai, where the accused lived with his mother.
According to the prosecution, the accused mixed about 30 sleeping tablets in milk and gave it to Lalita at around 2:00 a.m. When she did not die, he allegedly tried to suffocate her with a pillow. The prosecution further alleged that he cut her throat with a paper cutter kept in the house.
Later, at about 8:52 a.m., the accused called the police.
Neighbour Sachin Yashwant Jaygadkar (PW-1) lodged the report after the police arrived at the chawl. Officers entered the accused’s room and found Lalita lying on a cot in a pool of blood.
Police took the accused into custody the same day. Lalita was taken to hospital, where doctors declared her dead.
Procedural History
The offence and FIR were registered on 29.11.2018. The police filed the charge-sheet on 07.02.2019.
The court framed charges on 10.01.2020. The trial evidence began on 10.10.2023.
Since the offence was exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate committed the matter after complying with Sections 207 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by order dated 13.03.2019.
The Court held that the death was homicidal and found that the prosecution proved the accused committed the murder at the stated time and place.
Evidence Relied Upon
The prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence because there were no eyewitnesses.
The Court noted that the deceased had fatal injuries and the accused was present in the room. Witnesses also testified about statements made by the accused at the spot.
The Court relied on the medical testimony of Dr. Lochan Vinod Patil (PW-8), who conducted the post-mortem examination. The doctor stated that vascular injury caused by incised neck wounds led to death. He also confirmed that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The Court observed that the injuries were possible using the seized cutter (Article-A).
The judgment also referred to forensic evidence. The viscera report did not detect poison. The Court noted that the prosecution did not claim death occurred due to tablets but due to neck injuries.
While evaluating circumstantial evidence, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) and reiterated the legal principles governing such cases.
Conviction And Sentence
After finding the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the Court heard arguments on sentencing.
Advocate Kanchan Chandak sought leniency and cited the accused’s illnesses. The APP argued for maximum punishment.
By order dated February 24, 2026, the Court convicted Yogesh Ramakant Shenoy under Section 302 IPC in Crime No. 389 of 2018.
The Court invoked Section 235(2) CrPC / Section 258(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of ₹5,000. In default of payment, he must undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment.
The Court also granted set-off for the period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC. It directed disposal of muddemal articles after the appeal period.
Finally, the Court informed the accused of his right to appeal before the High Court and ordered that a free copy of the judgment be supplied under Section 363 CrPC / Section 404 BNSS.
