A Mumbai sessions court acquitted all eight accused, including Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar (NCP-SP) leader Padamsinh Patil, in the 2006 murder of former MLA Pawanraje Nimbalkar and his driver on Saturday, June 20, 2026. The court cited a lack of credible evidence and significant procedural failures by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), stating the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after a two-decade-long legal process.
Why the court ordered the acquittal
The acquittal of Mr. Patil and seven co-accused—Satish Mandade, Mohan Shukla, Shashikant Kulkarni, Kailash Yadav, Dinesh Tiwari, Pintu Singh, and Chhote Pandey—followed the court’s identification of multiple investigation flaws. According to the court, the testimony of a key witness who turned approver was unreliable due to a history of dishonesty and contradictions regarding his movements on the day of the June 3, 2006, shooting in Kalamboli.
The court also highlighted procedural lapses, noting the police failed to seize mobile phones or obtain call detail records that could have established contact between the accused. Further, the court identified inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the vehicle used in the crime, noting that seizure reports described a burnt car as having a specific color, which the judge deemed implausible.
Did You Know?
The court noted that the key witness, who claimed to have offered a bottle of scotch whisky to former Commissioner of Police Rakesh Maria, had substantial personal assets, making the suggestion that he would commit a contract killing for ₹50,000 highly improbable.
Implications for the investigation and legal challenges
The CBI has formally announced its intent to challenge the trial court’s judgment in the Bombay High Court. In a statement released Saturday, the agency maintained that it had presented strong evidence against the accused. This decision follows a request from Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde to Union Home Minister Amit Shah to review the case proceedings.
Expert Insight:
The judicial emphasis on the lack of technical evidence, specifically missing mobile phone records, underscores the high evidentiary threshold required in long-standing criminal conspiracy cases. By highlighting the failure to investigate the origin of a 2003 letter in which the victim named Mr. Patil, the court suggests that political rivalry, while documented, cannot substitute for direct, corroborated proof of criminal intent.
How the victims’ family and political leaders responded
Omraje Nimbalkar, son of the late Pawanraje Nimbalkar, described the verdict as “unfortunate” and “surprising.” He confirmed his intention to appeal the decision in the High Court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, while characterizing the current legal environment as difficult for those seeking justice. The younger Nimbalkar also alleged that the initial investigation into his father’s death had been “managed.”
Political reactions to the acquittal have been sharp. Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde publicly labeled the verdict unfortunate. Meanwhile, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ambadas Danve expressed concern that the acquittal of the accused despite the evidence presented would negatively impact public faith in the judicial system.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who were the primary accused in the 2006 murder case?
The eight acquitted individuals include senior NCP-SP leader and Lok Sabha MP Padamsinh Patil, along with Satish Mandade, Mohan Shukla, Shashikant Kulkarni, Kailash Yadav, Dinesh Tiwari, Pintu Singh, and Chhote Pandey.
Why did the court reject the testimony of the approver?
The court found the approver unreliable because he had a history of lying, his account of the crime route changed four times, and his financial status made the alleged motive for the crime appear implausible to the judge.
What is the next step for the prosecution?
The CBI is slated to challenge the trial court’s judgment in the Bombay High Court, asserting that the agency had brought forward sufficient evidence to support its case.
How will the planned appeal by the CBI influence the public perception of the original investigation’s integrity?
Keep reading