Lokmat News Network
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
In the case of the kidnapping and brutal murder of 10-year-old Vardhan Vivek Ghode for a ransom of ₹5 crore, the Sessions Court had sentenced the accused, Abhilash Sudhir Mohanpurkar and Shyam Laxman Magare, to life imprisonment and a fine. On September 22, 2025, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Sandipkumar More upheld the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
What was the incident?
The accused had kidnapped and murdered the child, Vardhan Ghode, on February 27, 2017 for ransom. In connection with this incident, a case was registered at Jawaharnagar Police Station under sections 302, 364-A, 121-B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The investigation was carried out by Police Inspector Avinash Aghav and ASI Sunil Badgujar, who arrested the accused, collected evidence, and filed a chargesheet in court. After the hearing, on December 14, 2018, the Sessions Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2.5 lakh on Abhilash and ₹5,000 on Shyam. Special Public Prosecutor Ajay Misar from Nashik represented the government in this case.
Appeal upheld by High Court bench
The accused had filed a criminal appeal against the sentence in the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. During a detailed hearing, several key questions arose – Under what circumstances did Vardhan die (homicidal death)? How were blood stains of the deceased found in Abhilash’s car and on his clothes? How did the accused know the location where the body was dumped? The accused failed to provide satisfactory answers to these questions, which further established their involvement in the crime.
Vardhan’s body was found at a location shown by the accused. CCTV footage also showed the accused with the deceased, and the timeline matched with the prosecution's case. The prosecution presented circumstantial, corroborative, and reliable scientific evidence which proved the charges.
The High Court noted that the trial court had imposed an appropriate sentence, and therefore, dismissed the appeal, maintaining the life sentences.