Allowed

Leena Nitin Padavale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Sept 2023IA/977/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed an interim application by a convicted appellant seeking suspension of sentence and bail. The court granted bail pending the final disposal of her appeal, subject to standard conditions including furnishing a bond and reporting periodicity.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties, subject to reporting to the trial court and informing of address changes.

Leena Nitin Padavale Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:27757-DB

¶2

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 977 OF 2023
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2023

¶6

Leena Nitin Padavale...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil i/b Mr. Umesh Mankapure, for the Applicant.
Mr. K.V.Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 GAURI GODSE, JJ.
 DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of her
sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of her appeal.

¶14

3. The applicant, vide Judgment and Order dated 24th

¶15

1/8

¶16

Wakodikar

¶17

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶18

January 2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2012, has been convicted
alongwith other co-accused as under:

¶19

— For the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three months.

¶20

— For the offence punishable under section 201 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.

¶21

— For the offence punishable under section 364 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.

¶22

— For the offence punishable under section 120-B read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years
and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.

¶23

2/8

¶24

Wakodikar

¶25

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶26

—
For the offence punishable under section 392 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months.

¶27

All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶28

4. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests
on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the incident
took place on 12th January 2011 at about 5.30 p.m. It is alleged that
Nitin Padavale (deceased) returned home from his agricultural land
and at about 6.30 p.m. again went out and thereafter, did not return
home. Pursuant thereto, Nitin’s brother - Ganesh lodged a missing
complaint on 14th January 2011. It appears that on 21st January 2011,
one police Patil informed the police about a dead body, lying near
Waghzara, Kolhapur. The dead body was found lying in a valley at a
depth of about 50 feet and was in a decomposed condition with no
head attached to the body. Pursuant thereto, C.R. No. 7 of 2011
came to be registered with Shahuwadi Police Station, Kolhapur
alleging offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of the Indian

¶29

3/8

¶30

Wakodikar

¶31

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶32

Penal Code. During the course of investigation, applicant and other
co-accused came to be arrested. According to the prosecution, the
accused no. 1-Ravi Mane had a love affair with the applicant i.e.
accused no. 7-Leena Padavale (wife of the deceased) and that accused
no. 1-Ravi Mane in order to eliminate Nitin, hired accused nos. 5-
Deelip Dudhale and accused no. 6- Amit Shinde to kill the deceased. It
is alleged that pursuant thereto, a meeting was organized in a hotel on
12th January 2011, which was attended by accused nos. 1-Ravi
Mane, 2-Vijay Shinde, 3-Kishor Mane, 5-Deelip Dudhale, 6-Amit
Shinde and 9-Satish Vadar. It is the prosecution case that accused nos.
2 - Vijay Shinde, 3 - Kishor Mane, 4 - Aakash @ Akash Waghmare, 5 -
Deelip Dudhale and 6 - Amit Shinde brought Nitin at Warnanagar
Kodoli, Borpadale Phata, Bambawade, Malkapur Road to Waghzara
jungle; and thereafter, accused nos. 2 - Vijay, 3 - Kishor, 5 - Deelip and
6 - Amit took Nitin to the said jungle; that accused nos. 2 - Vijay, 3 -
Kishor and 5 - Deelip held Nitin by his leg and accused no. 6 held
Nitin’s head. It is alleged that accused no. 6-Amit Shinde severed
Nitin’s head from his body and killed him and thereafter, the body

¶33

4/8

¶34

Wakodikar

¶35

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶36

was thrown in a valley. It is further the prosecution case, that when
the aforesaid accused reached Amrut Nagari Phata, post the incident,
accused no.1-Ravi came alongwith accused no. 11-Manesh
Kuchkoravi (on accused no. 1’s motor cycle), and that accused no. 6 -
Amit showed Nitin’s head to accused nos. 1-Ravi. Thereafter, Nitin’s
head and all his articles were disposed of, by throwing the same in
Warna river.

¶37

5.As noted earlier, the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits
that merely because the applicant (wife of the deceased - Nitin) had
illicit relations with accused No.1 – Ravi, no motive can be attributed
to the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. He submits
that there is no motive on record as alleged by the prosecution to
connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He submits that
admittedly, the applicant was not present at Hotel Maharaja, even
according to the prosecution, when the conspiracy was hatched by the
accused No.1 with other co-accused, nor was she present when the
deceased – Nitin was done to death. He further submits that the

¶38

Wakodikar

¶39

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶40

prosecution has not brought on record the CDR’s to show that the
applicant was in touch with the accused at the relevant time and as
such, in the absence of any evidence the applicant could not have been
convicted.

¶41

6.Learned APP does not dispute the fact that the applicant
was not present at the spot when the conspiracy was hatched, nor was
she present at the spot, where deceased was done to death. He,
however, submits that the applicant had motive to kill the deceased,
inasmuch as, she is having an affair with accused No.1 – Ravi.

¶42

7.We have perused the evidence of P.W.13 - Ganesh (brother
of deceased – Nitin). A perusal of the evidence of P.W.13 – Ganesh
reveals that he learnt after the incident that the applicant was having
an affair with accused No.1 – Ravi. Apart from the said statement,
there is nothing on record to show that there was any quarrel/dispute
between the applicant and the deceased, on account of the same. As
far as conspiracy alleged to have been hatched in the Hotel Maharaja
is concerned, admittedly, the applicant was not present at the hotel, at

¶43

6/8

¶44

Wakodikar

¶45

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶46

the relevant time. Admittedly, the applicant was not even present at
the spot where, the deceased was done to death. The prosecution has
not brought on record the CDRs of the applicant, to show that the
applicant was in touch with the accused when the alleged incident
took place. Admittedly, it is accused No.1 – Ravi, who had hired some
of the accused for committing the alleged offence and there is prima
facie, nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had knowledge
about the same. The applicant is in custody since 2011.

¶47

8. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record qua the
applicant, the application is allowed and the applicant’s sentence is
suspended and she is enlarged on bail on the following terms and
conditions:

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

i)The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond
in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount;

¶50

ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three

¶51

7/8

¶52

Wakodikar

¶53

IA 977 of 2023.doc

¶54

months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till her Appeal is
finally disposed of;

¶55

iii) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of her
current address and mobile contact number and/or change of
residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶56

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before
the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High
Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application
seeking cancellation of bail.

¶57

9.The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.

¶58

10.All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶59

order.

¶60

GAURI GODSE, J.

¶61

 REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶62

8/8

¶63

Wakodikar

Leena Nitin Padavale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena Nitin Padavale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aslam@Sandy Ikrar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrawan Bhaurao Dude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramu Maruti Gadivdar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Geetanjali Virupaksha Menashi Vs State of Maharashtra

Jitendrakumar Karansingh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra