Bombay High Court

PREETAM GANPATI PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the appellant has an arguable case on merits and therefore suspended the sentence and granted bail pending the appeal.

Summary

Preetam Ganpati Patil was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, for murder (IPC s.302), attempt to murder (IPC s.201) and criminal intimidation (IPC s.452), each under section 235(2) of the CrPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment terms. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the deceased’s wife, who claimed to have witnessed the assault, but her cross‑examination revealed material omissions that undermined her earlier statements. No forensic link between the seized weapon and the victim’s blood was established, and the alleged phone confession was deemed an extra‑judicial confession of limited probative value. The appellant argued that these evidentiary deficiencies created an arguable case on merits and that he had already served over nine years in custody pending appeal. The Court found merit in the appellant’s contentions, noting the delay in recording the eyewitness statement and the lack of corroborative evidence. Consequently, the Court suspended the sentence pending the appeal and granted bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the evidentiary omissions in the eyewitness testimony warrant suspension of the sentence pending appeal.
Whether the lack of forensic linkage between the weapon and the victim undermines the conviction.
Whether bail can be granted to an appellant who has served nine and a half years in custody pending appeal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 235(2)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302, 452

Subjects

murder
attempt to murder
criminal intimidation
bail
suspension of sentence
evidentiary omission
cross‑examination
appeal

Judgment

10-CRIA-3524-2025.doc

Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by HARISH
HARISH
VITHAL
VITHAL
CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.08.21
12:24:01
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+0530

CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3524 OF 2025
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2024

Preetam Ganpati Patil ...Applicant.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

——————
Mr. Atharva R. B. (Through V. C.) i/b Sumit Patil for the Applicant.
Smt. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 20, 2026.

P. C. :

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge Kolhapur, Dist-Kolhapur in Sessions

Case No. 63 of 2017 by judgment and order dated 05.07.2024,

convicting and sentencing the appellant/applicant as follows :

“1] Accused No. 1 Preetam Ganpati Patil is convicted
u/s.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence
punishable u/s.302 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay ine of
Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousands only), in default, to

Harish 1 of 6
10-CRIA-3524-2025.doc

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2] Accused No.1 Preetam Ganpati Patil is convicted
u/s.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence
punishable u/s.201 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to
pay ine of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand only), in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3] Accused No.1 Preetam Ganpati Patil is convicted
u/s.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence
punishable u/s.452 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to
pay ine of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five thousands only), in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year…….”

2. To show the prosecution's case, paragraph No. 2 of the impugned

judgment of the learned Trial Court, is reproduced below:

“ The name of the deceased is Dr. Krishna Rambhau
Kirawale. He was residing at K.P. Residency, Plot No.2,
Mhada Colony, Kolhapur. He was retired as Professor from
Shivaji University, Kolhapur. He was the author of diferent
books and activist and follower of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.
On 03-03-2017 at about 11.00 a.m. deceased left home and
returned at 3.00 p.m. The deceased and his wife took lunch.
The deceased went to 2nd loor room for rest and his wife
Kalpana went at irst loor room. At about 4.00 p.m. wife
Kalpana Kirawale heard voices of his shouting from the

Harish 2 of 6
10-CRIA-3524-2025.doc

room of the deceased. She went to second loor room. She
noticed that the door of the room was open. The accused
Preetam Patil had hold the neck of deceased by right hand
and blood was lying there. So she rushed outside the house
for help. She went to Kirana shop of Pujari for help and to
make phone to police but the call could not be connected.
Then she went to the house of Kadam, waited for Balu
Kadam and then came near the house with him. Till that
time the crowd was gathered. Balu Kadam went to second
loor room and he noticed that the deceased was lying in
pool of blood. Then police came there. PI Amrut Deshmukh
received the information of the incident and he proceeded
to the spot with the staf members. The persons by name
Vijaysing Mohansing Rajput was there. He disclosed that
when he was for his work at Gokul Shirgaon, he received the
phone call of the accused Preetam Ganpati Patil, who
disclosed to him on phone that he killed the deceased and
called him. Vijaysing further disclosed that he accordingly
came there and saw the dead body. Then the other
activities were done by PI Deshmukh.”

3. The crime was registered, investigation was done and

chargesheet was iled. The prosecution led evidence before the learned

Trial Court. On considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial

Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/applicant as above.

4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant-

appellant that, though the prosecution examined the eyewitness to the

Harish 3 of 6
10-CRIA-3524-2025.doc

incident, material omissions are brought in the cross-examination which

completely demolishes her evidence in the examination-in-chief that,

she witnessed the incident. He further submits that, there is delay of

three (3) days in recording the statement of the eyewitness, and there is

no explanation for the same from the side of the prosecution. The

appellant is behind bars for a period of nine (9) and half (½) years. The

appeal would take its own time, and the appellant has an arguable case

on merits; therefore, the application be allowed, and the applicant-

appellant be released on bail.

5. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned APP. She

submits that, the prosecution examined the wife of the deceased as PW

No. 3. Her evidence shows that, she witnessed the incident that, the

appellant assaulted her deceased husband. The recovery of the weapon

'Sattur' was efected at the instance of Accused No. 2, who was the

applicant-appellant’s mother. The report was lodged by PW No. 1, to

whom the appellant had made a phone call and informed that a quarrel

had taken place between him and someone. The admission in the cross-

examination will not demolish the evidence of eye witness. She submits

that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on

record and the application be rejected.

6. With the assistance of both the sides, we have perused the

evidence on record. The prosecution's case is based on the testimony of

Harish 4 of 6
10-CRIA-3524-2025.doc

the single eyewitness, i.e. the wife of the deceased, who is examined as

PW No. 3. Though in her examination-in-chief she deposed that, she

witnessed the appellant assaulting her deceased husband, her cross-

examination indicates that, the witnessing of the incident of assault by

the appellant on her husband was an omission in her previous

statements. The said omission goes to the root of the case. Though the

evidence of PW No. 1, informant, goes to show that the appellant had

called him, his evidence nowhere shows that, the conversation was in

respect of the assault to the deceased. Even accepting the said

evidence, the same would be an extra-judicial confession, which would

be a weak piece of evidence. There is no material to show that the blood

of the deceased was found on the seized weapon. The weapon was

seized or discovered at the instance of Accused No. 2. Thus, the

recovery/ discovery will not be relevant as per Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. Undisputedly, the cause of death of the deceased was

hemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital organs. The injury on the

hand of the appellant by itself will not be suicient to prove the

involvement of the appellant in the crime.

7. The above aspects in the matter goes to show that, the appellant

has an arguable case on merits. The appeal is of 2024. There is no

possibility that the appeal would be heard inally in the near future. The

appellant is behind bars for a period of more than nine (9) years. In view

Harish 5 of 6
10-CRIA-3524-2025.doc

thereof, we are inclined to pass the following order:

ORDER

a) The application is allowed.

b) The substantive Sentence imposed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.
63 of 2017 by judgment and order dated 05.07.2024 on
the appellant, is suspended during pendency of the
Appeal.

c) Applicant - Preetam Ganpati Patil be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

d) The Applicant–Appellant shall co-operate in early hearing
of the Appeal.

e) Bail before the Trial Court.

f) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…