Additional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan Ramjivan Navandar ruled that the Central Bureau of Investigation had failed to establish the chain of circumstances required to prove the alleged conspiracy behind the murders beyond reasonable doubt. A detailed order in the case is still awaited.
Pavanraje Nimbalkar and his driver were shot dead inside a car by armed assailants on June 3, 2006. The case had drawn widespread attention because of the political stature of the individuals involved and the allegations of a contract killing linked to political rivalry.
The principal accused in the case was 86-year-old Padamsinh Patil, a former minister of the Nationalist Congress Party and former Home Minister of Maharashtra. He is also the brother of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar. According to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Patil had allegedly masterminded a contract killing valued at approximately ₹30 lakh to ₹35 lakh. Investigators claimed that the alleged conspiracy stemmed from political rivalry and disputes over the management of the Terna Sugar Factory.
The other accused in the case were businessman Satish Mandade, former corporator Mohan Shukla, Parasmal Jain, former excise inspector Shashikant Kulkarni, Bahujan Samaj Party worker Kailash Yadav, and alleged shooters Dinesh Tiwari, Pintu Singh, and Chote Pandey. Parasmal Jain later turned approver in the case.
During the trial, the Central Bureau of Investigation relied heavily on the testimony of the approver to support its allegations. However, the prosecution's case suffered setbacks as 29 of the 128 witnesses examined during the proceedings turned hostile.
Following the court's decision, the remaining eight accused, including Padamsinh Patil, were acquitted of all charges. The Central Bureau of Investigation is expected to challenge the verdict before the High Court.
The verdict marks a significant chapter in one of Maharashtra's most closely watched political murder cases, bringing a major legal conclusion to a case that had remained under scrutiny for almost twenty years while leaving open the possibility of further judicial examination through an appeal.
About The Author
Comment List