Geetanjali Virupaksha Menashi v. State Of Maharashtra

2023:BHC-AS:27758-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 989 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2023 Geetanjali Virupaksha Menashi ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Paras Yadav, for the Applicant.

Mr. K.V.Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & GAURI GODSE, JJ.

DATE : 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2023 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

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

1/7

3.

The applicant, vide Judgment and Order dated 24th January 2023 has been convicted alongwith other co-accused as under:

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

2/7

- 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.

All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. 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 3/7

alleging offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of the Indian 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 accused no. 7Leena 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, 5Deelip 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.

Nitin's head from his body and killed him and thereafter, the body 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.

5.

As noted earlier, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. As far as the applicant is concerned, it is the prosecution case that the applicant had called the deceased prior to the incident and as such, had asked him to go to the spot. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has not brought any material on record in the form of CDR, to show that the applicant had infact, called deceased - Nitin on 12th January, 2011. Learned Counsel relied on the examination-in-chief of the Nodal Officer i.e. P.W.17 - Vasant Jadhav, to show that the said officer has 5/7

not spoken about the CDRs of the applicant. He submits that apart from the aforesaid, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the said incident. Learned APP, when confronted, does not dispute the fact that the CDR records of the applicant is not brought on record by the prosecution. Learned APP is unable to point out any other circumstantial evidence qua the applicant. It is not in dispute that the applicant was on bail, pending the trial and has not abused the conditions of bail.

6.

Considering the evidence on record qua the applicant as stated aforesaid, the application is allowed and the applicant's sentence is suspended and she is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions:

O R D E R

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;

6/7

ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till her Appeal is finally disposed of;

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; 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.

7.

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

8.

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

GAURI GODSE, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

7/7