GEETA SHANKAR PADULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                           17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 496 OF 2026
                                  IN
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2026

Geeta Shankar Padule                    ...Applicant.

In the Matter in Between :
Geeta Shankar Padule            ...Applicant.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
                            ——————
Mr. Priyal Sarda with Mr. Onkar Bajaj, for the Applicant.
Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade with Ms. Shradha K. Nakadi, for the Respondent No.2-
Intervenor/complainant.
                                 ——————
                                   Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                   Date      : September 24, 2026.
P. C. :

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

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Extra Joint), Barshi, District Solapur

in Sessions Case No.132 of 2023 by the Judgment and Order dated 11 th

February 2026, convicting and sentencing the Applicant/Appellant as

follows:

           1. Accused Geeta w/o. Shankar Padule, age 26 yrs, occ.
             Household, resident of Anjangaon (Umate), Tal. Madha,
             Dist. Solapur is hereby convicted vide Section 235(2) of the
             Code of Criminal Procedure for having committed ofence


Gaikwad RD                          1 of 9
                                                           17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


             punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
             she is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
             and to pay a ine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) in
             default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six
             months.
         2. Accused Geeta w/o. Shankar Padule, age 26 yrs, occ.
             Household, resident of Anjangaon (Umate), Tal. Madha,
             Dist. Solapur is hereby convicted vide Section 235(2) of the
             Code of Criminal Procedure for having committed ofence
             punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
             she is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
             three years and to pay a ine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two
             thousand only) in default, to undergo further rigorous
             imprisonment for one month.
         3. Both substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run
             concurrently.
         4. Accsued Geeta Shankar Padule is in jail in this case since
             03.02.2023 till today ie. till 11.02.2026 and therefore, the
             period of detention already undergone by her in jail in this
             case be set of from the substantive sentences awarded in
             this case vide Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
             Procedure.
         5 ................
         6 ................"
2.      The prosecution case as seen from the impugned Judgment is as

follows. The relevant paragraphs from the impugned Judgment are

reproduced below :

      “2.One Siddheshwar Changdev Jadhav (hereinafter referred as


Gaikwad RD                          2 of 9
                                                          17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


         "informant" for short) lodged report in Police Station, Madha
         contending that his daughter Ujwala (the deceased) was married
         with Kiran Laxman Padule on 29/11/2022 and since then she was
         cohabiting with her husband, parent-in-laws, brother-in-law and his
         wife Geeta. Kiran Laxman Padule was doing private job at Pune
         and was residing there alone and used to come to Anjangaon
         (Umate) in holidays.
      3. It is averred that the informant had brought Ujwala at his house for
         Sankrant Festival. At that time, they ofered her earrings and
         Mangalsutra of gold for daily use. Two days thereafter, they
         reached Ujwala at Anjangaon (Umate). Thereafter, the informant
         and his family members had to go to Gadda Yatra, Solapur and
         therefore, on 23/01/2023, he sent to his son Somnath to fetch
         Ujwala at Malwandi. At that time, they did not notice earrings and
         Mangalsutra on the person of Ujwala and therefore the informant
         and his wife inquired thereabout to her. At that time, she replied
         that she kept those ornaments at Anjangaon (Umate). Thereafter
         two days, his son Somnath reached Ujwala at Anjangaon (Umate).
      4. It is further averred that on the same day at 06.00 pm, Ujwala
         made telephone call to informant and stated that while coming to
         Malwandi, she had kept the Mangalsutra and earrings in the
         cupboard of bed room, but she did not ind those ornaments in the
         cupboard Therefore, the informant suggested her to inquire
         thereabout to her mother-in-law and family members to which she
         replied that her mother-in-law went out station and therefore she
         asked wife of her brother-in-law by name Geeta (the accused)
         about it, but she shown ignorance and she cautioned Ujwala not to
         inquire about it with mother-in-law. Therefore, Ujwala requested
         the informant to inquire about aforesaid ornaments to her father-


Gaikwad RD                         3 of 9
                                                         17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


         in-law. Therefore, the informant made telephone call to father-in-
         law of Ujwala and inquired about the ornaments. However, he also
         shown ignorance and suggested him to ask his daughter Ujwala to
         see ornaments in the cupboard minutely. Therefore, the informant
         made telephone call to Ujwala and convinced that he will again
         ofer her another new ornaments if it were not found.
      5. The prosecution has further averred that on the next day, Ujwala
         made telephone call to informant and stated that when she again
         inquired with accused Geeta about ornaments, she stated that she
         had not taken ornaments and not to make allegations against her,
         otherwise cautioned to see her and thus quarreled with her.
      6. The case further goes that on 02/02/2023 at about 04.00 pm
         father-in-law of Ujwala by name Laxman Padule made telephone
         call to him and stated that bad thing is happened and asked him to
         reach at Anjangaon (Umate) immediately. Therefore, the informant
         and his nephew Sahadev went to Anjangaon on motorcycle and
         found that his daughter Ujwala was lying in half burnt condition in
         bed room and one white colour Gamja was wrapped around her
         neck and she was dead.
      7. It is further averred that then informant asked Laxman Padule as
         to what happened to which he stated that he himself, his son
         Shankar and wife Sharda had been to the ield and only accused
         Geeta, her infant baby and Ujwala were present in the house. At
         about 03.00 pm Geeta made telephone call to him and Sharda and
         asked them to reach home immediately and therefore he himself,
         Sharda and Shankar returned home from the ield and found Geeta
         was weeping while Ujwala was lying dead in half burnt condition.
         When the informant inquired with accused Geeta, she initially kept
         mum, but when the informant inquired with her for 2-3 times, at


Gaikwad RD                         4 of 9
                                                             17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


         that time, she stated that she does not know anything, because she
         had sat with her baby. According to the informant, Geeta was
         annoyed with Ujwala since Ujwala had suspicion over Geeta
         regarding theft of her golden omaments. Therefore, according to
         the informant, since ornaments of Ujwala were stolen and she had
         suspicion over Geeta, as a result, quarrel took place between them
         and being annoyed therewith, accused Geeta committed murder of
         Ujwala at about 03.00 pm on 02/02/2023 by strangulating her
         neck with the help of Gamja and set her dead body on ire in order
         to destroy the evidence. So he lodged the report.
      8. On the basis of above report. Crime No. 18/2023 was registered for
         the ofence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal
         Code and investigation was handed over to API Mr. Sham Buwa,
         wherein he visited at Anjangaon (Umate) and prepared inquest
         panchnama on the dead body before panch witnesses, snapped
         photographs, sent dead body for post mortem examination. He
         further conducted spot panchnama before panchas, seized various
         articles from the spot, arrested the accused from whom he seized
         key of lock and knife in pursuance of memorandum statement. He
         further seized clothes on the person of deceased, collected sim card
         of Jio company from witness Somnath. He also seized mobile
         phone of the accused, recorded statements of witnesses, got
         recorded statement of informant under Section 164 of Code of
         Criminal Procedure from Ld. JMFC and further sent the muddemal
         to CA oice, collected Post Mortem report and injury certiicate of
         the accused. He further collected certiicate from MSEDCL
         authority, property card of the house of spot of incident. He further
         issued letter to the Nodal oicers of Airtel and Jio company
         thereby seeking cap form, CDR record and later on collected them.


Gaikwad RD                         5 of 9
                                                        17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


         He further collected copy of Aadhar card and wedding card of
         marriage of Ujwala. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet
         came to be iled in the Court of Ld. JMFC.”

3.      Heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant, learned APP

for the State, and learned counsel for the victim. With their assistance,

we have perused the evidence on record.

4.      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant

that, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution

failed to prove each and every circumstance, so as to form a complete

chain that would establish that it was the Applicant/Appellant, who

committed the crime. She submits that the Applicant/Appellant is the

woman and behind bars for a period of more than three (3) years. The

Applicant is having minor children. She submits that the appeal is of

2026 and would not come up for inal hearing in the near future and

hence, the application be allowed.

5.      The application is opposed by the learned APP and learned

counsel for the victim. They submit that the evidence on record shows

that the Applicant/Appellant was present on the spot of the incident

along with the deceased. The prosecution established the motive

behind the crime by examining the father and brother of the deceased.

The knife and the key of the house, where the incident had taken place

are discovered at the instance of the Applicant/Appellant. The learned


Gaikwad RD                         6 of 9
                                                       17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


trial Court has rightly convicted the Applicant/Appellant and no case for

suspension is made out.

6.      To prove the charge, the prosecution examined in all 11

witnesses.    The evidence of P.W.No.3, who is the neighbour of the

Applicant/Appellant, shows that, on the date of incident, i.e., 2 nd

February 2023, when he returned home from the agricultural ield, he

heard the voice of Shankar, i.e., the husband of the Applicant/Appellant.

The place of incident, i.e., the house, where the deceased was found,

was found burning. He along with the help of the husband of the

Applicant/Appellant broke open the lock of the house.                 The

Applicant/Appellant's husband-Shankar entered the house and removed

the Applicant/Appellant from the house. Undisputedly, the said Shankar,

who is the husband of the Applicant/Appellant, is not examined by the

prosecution. The defence in the cross-examination has brought that the

statement of this witness was recorded after 4 to 5 days from the date

of incident. There is nothing to show that the prosecution explained

the said delay.

7.      The medical evidence shows that, the cause of death was asphyxia

due to strangulation. Considering the cause of death, the discovery of

the knife at the instance of the Applicant/ Appellant would not be

relevant. The motive behind the crime, according to the prosecution, is

that the Applicant/Appellant had stolen the ornaments of the deceased.


Gaikwad RD                       7 of 9
                                                           17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


Undisputedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that, the ornaments

were discovered at the instance of Applicant/Appellant. The ornaments

were never seized during the course of investigation.

8.         The Applicant/ Appellant has an arguable case on merits and

success in appeal cannot be ruled out. The Applicant/Appellant is the

woman having minor children. She is behind bars for a period of more

than three (3) years. The appeal is of 2026 and is not likely to be heard

inally in the near future. Considering all these aspects of the matter,

we are inclined to pass the following order:

                                    ORDER

      i)      The Application is allowed.

      ii)     The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional

              Sessions Judge (Extra Joint), Barshi, District Solapur in

              Sessions Case No. 132 of 2023 by the Judgment and Order

              dated 11th February 2026 on the Applicant/Appellant, is

              suspended during pendency of the Appeal.

      iii)    Applicant-Geeta Shankar Padule be released on bail on

              furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand

              Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

      iv)     The Applicant/Appellant, before her release, shall provide

              details of her residential address and mobile/landline contact




Gaikwad RD                           8 of 9
                                                                                17-CRIA-496-2026.doc


                                     numbers to the jail authorities, which shall be forwarded to

                                     the concerned Police Station.

                              v)     The Applicant/Appellant shall co-operate with this Court for

                                     early hearing of the Appeal.

                              vi)    Bail before the Trial Court.



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

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.09.24
           19:15:06
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                           9 of 9