{"id":119401,"date":"2010-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2"},"modified":"2015-12-21T23:38:45","modified_gmt":"2015-12-21T18:08:45","slug":"at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.238 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     Jamsing Hulya Barela,\n     Age 50 years, R\/o Chilaya,\n     Tq. and Dist. Badwani\n     (Madhya Pradesh)\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     At present in Jail.                                   ..Appellant\n\n     Versus\n\n     The State of Maharashtra                              ..Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                        ig               ...\n\n     Advocates appearing for :\n                      \n     Appellant : Shri S.K.Adkine and\n     Respondent : Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP\n\n                                         ...\n      \n\n                                 CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                 Reserved on : April 23, 2010
\n                                 Pronounced on : May 3, 2010<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT : (Per S.B.Deshmukh, J.) :-\n<\/p>\n
     1.           The appellant (accused) aggrieved by the judgment and<\/p>\n
     order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Ad-hoc<\/p>\n
     Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, District Jalgaon, in Sessions Case<\/p>\n
     No.25 of 2006, dated 25.7.2007 has preferred the present appeal. By<\/p>\n
     the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offense<\/p>\n
     punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and<\/p>\n
     sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000\/- in default<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
     of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six month.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     (A)          The accused was employed as a servant by PW 3 Bhagwan<\/p>\n
     for agricultural work. PW 3 Bhagwan is resident of Amalner and holds<\/p>\n
     landed property within the area of Kamod Shivar. Accused was engaged<\/p>\n
     through one Bhaidas,       on the salary of Rs.1400\/-             per month.\n<\/p>\n
     Arrangements of accused were made in the machine room situated in<\/p>\n
     the field. Accused, along with deceased Khetalibai, started residing in<\/p>\n
     the said Machine Room.\n<\/p>\n
     (B)          On 30.3.2006, accused and Khetalibai reached the house of<\/p>\n
     PW 3 Bhagwan and informed him that they are going to their native<\/p>\n
     place. Accordingly for two days, the accused and Khetalibai were not<\/p>\n
     present in the field property.\n<\/p>\n
     (C)          On 1.4.2006 PW 3 Bhagwan and his brother went to the<\/p>\n
     field and noticed that accused and Khetalibai were present in the field.\n<\/p>\n
     On inquiry, accused informed them that they had returned at 3 p.m. PW<\/p>\n
     3 Bhagwan asked the accused to fetch water and thereafter returned to<\/p>\n
     home.\n<\/p>\n
     (D)          On 2.4.2006, PW 8 Swati and other females went to the<\/p>\n
     field for work. On asking for the drinking water by other females, PW 8<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Swati went to the Machine Room to fetch a water. She opened the door<\/p>\n
     of Machine Room and noticed blood stains on the soil of the said room.\n<\/p>\n
     She also noticed dead body of Khetalibai lying in the Machine Room.\n<\/p>\n
     She got frightened, returned to home and informed her uncle PW 3<\/p>\n
     Bhagwan about the incident.\n<\/p>\n
     (E)           PW 3 Bhagwan, thereafter, approached the Police and<\/p>\n
     along with them reached the field. They noticed blood stains on the soil,<\/p>\n
     dead body lying in the machine room, stone, axe, wooden Mogari lying<\/p>\n
     on the spot and injuries on the head of Khetalibai. On suspicion, PW 3<\/p>\n
     Bhagwan lodged a complaint against accused on 2.4.2006 (Exhibit 18)<\/p>\n
     at Amalner.\n<\/p>\n
     (F)           Based on the said complaint, Amalner Police registered<\/p>\n
     Crime No. 39 of 2006 against the accused for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
     under Section 302 of IPC. PW 13 API Nagrale of Amalner police Station<\/p>\n
     investigated the matter, visited the spot, drew inquest panchanama<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit 21) so also spot panchanama (Exhibit 13). He seized stone,<\/p>\n
     wooden Mogari, axe, clothes on the person of deceased, blood stained<\/p>\n
     soil from the spot of incidence.         During investigation he recorded<\/p>\n
     statements of witnesses and arrested the accused. He seized the shirt of<\/p>\n
     accused, which allegedly was worn by accused at the time of incident.\n<\/p>\n
     He sent seized articles to the Chemical Analyzer for its report.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
     (G)          After completion of investigation, charge sheet was<\/p>\n
     submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Amalner, against<\/p>\n
     the accused, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.\n<\/p>\n
     (H)          On 9.2.2007, vide Exhibit 7, charge was framed against the<\/p>\n
     accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Plea of the<\/p>\n
     accused was recorded. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined in all<\/p>\n
     fourteen witnesses. PW 1 is Raghunath Bhavrao Patil (Exhibit 12) – a<\/p>\n
     panch witness of the spot panchanama.        PW 2 is Pravin Vedu Patil<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit 14) – a panch of recovery of clothes.      PW 3 is complainant<\/p>\n
     Bhagwan Bhavrao Patil (Exhibit 17).    PW 4 is Deepak Lalchand Patil<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit 19), a panch witness of the spot panchanama. PW 5 is Bhaidas<\/p>\n
     Nana Barela (Exhibit 20), a son of deceased and witness of inquest<\/p>\n
     panchanama. PW 6 is PSI Mushtaq Ahmad (Exhibit 23), who registered a<\/p>\n
     crime against the accused. PW 7 is Police Constable Satyawan Bhaurao<\/p>\n
     Pawar (Exhibit 24), who carried the seized articles to the Chemical<\/p>\n
     Analyzer.   PW 8 is Swati Shankar Patil (Exhibit 25), niece of PW 3<\/p>\n
     Bhagwan. PW 9 is Dr. Ramchandra Savkare (Exhibit 26), who performed<\/p>\n
     autopsy on the dead body of Khetalibai. PW 10 is Shrawan Nago Patil<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit 30) – a panch witness, who was declared hostile and cross<\/p>\n
     examined by the prosecution. PW 11 is Digambar Patil (Exhibit 31), an<\/p>\n
     Advocate, who can talk Pawari language and translate the same. PW 12<\/p>\n
     is Rekhabai Jamsing Barela (Exhibi5 32) – wife of accused, who also<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
     turned hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. PW 13 is<\/p>\n
     Shivdas   Nagrale     (Exhibit    33),    Assistant    Police     Inspector,        who<\/p>\n
     investigated the crime.       PW 14 is Police Inspector Dayaram Bhoite<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit 37), who also investigated the crime.\n<\/p>\n
     4.           The    learned      trial   Judge,   recorded      evidence       of    all<\/p>\n
     prosecution witnesses as said above so also statement of the accused<\/p>\n
     under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, heard learned<\/p>\n
     counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and found the accused guilty of<\/p>\n
     the offence charged.      He, accordingly, recorded his conviction and<\/p>\n
     sentenced the accused as narrated in the opening paragraph of this<\/p>\n
     judgment. Aggrieved, thereby, the accused \/ appellant has preferred<\/p>\n
     the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                    The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines from<\/p>\n
     time to time in regard to the finding of guilt solely on the basis of<\/p>\n
     circumstantial evidence in number of cases. Leading judgment is in the<\/p>\n
     matter of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Another v. State of Madhya<\/p>\n
     Pradesh<\/a> [AIR 1952 SC 343] wherein the law was laid down in the<\/p>\n
     following terms :\n<\/p>\n
                  “….. It is well to remember that in cases where the
\n                  evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
\n                  from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in
\n                  the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so
\n                  established should be consistent only with the hypothesis<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
                 of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
\n                 be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be<\/p>\n
                 such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed
\n                 to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of<\/p>\n
                 evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
\n                 ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of
\n                 the accused and it must be such as to show that within all<\/p>\n
                 human probability the act must have been done by the
\n                 accused. …..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Again in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra<\/a><\/p>\n
     [(1984) 4 SCC 116], Supreme Court laid down the law in the following<\/p>\n
     terms :\n<\/p>\n
                 ” A close analysis of this decision would show that the<\/p>\n
                 following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against<\/p>\n
                 an accused can be said to be fully established:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is<\/p>\n
                 to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted
\n                 here that this Court indicated that the circumstances
\n                 concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established.
\n                 There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction<\/p>\n
                 between “may be proved” and “must be or should be
\n                 proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
\n                 Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations
\n                 were made – ‘Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
\n                 accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
\n                 court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may
\n                 be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures
\n                 from sure conclusions.’<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
                   (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
\n                   the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,<\/p>\n
                   they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
\n                   except that the accused is guilty,<\/p>\n
                   (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
\n                   tendency,<\/p>\n
                   (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
\n                   the one to be proved, and<\/p>\n
                   (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
\n                   leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
\n                   with the innocence of the accused and must show that in<\/p>\n
                   all human probability the act must have been done by the
\n                   accused.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   These two judgments have been quoted and followed by<\/p>\n
     the Supreme Court in the matter of Aloke Nath Dutta Vs. State of West<\/p>\n
     Bengal [(2007) 12 SCC 230].\n<\/p>\n
     6.            The case of the prosecution in the case on hand, is based<\/p>\n
     on certain circumstances which the trial court found to have been<\/p>\n
     established and sufficient to warrant a conviction of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
     circumstances brought on record by the prosecution and high lighted by<\/p>\n
     the trial court are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
     (I)           Unnatural death of Khetalibai.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>\n                                         8<\/span>\n\n     (II)        Deceased was last Seen alive in the company of the\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n     accused.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     (III)       Seizure of incriminating articles from spot of incident.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     (IV)        Seizure of Shirt of the accused stained with blood.\n\n\n\n     (V)         Abscondance of the accused after occurrence\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     7.\n                      \n<\/pre>\n
                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have<\/p>\n
     gone through the evidence. From the evidence of PW 3 Bhagwan it has<\/p>\n
     been revealed that he holds agricultural land within vicinity of village<\/p>\n
     Kamod jointly with his mother.    It is irrigated land having two wells<\/p>\n
     around 9 Acres. There is a Machine House (Engine House) near one of<\/p>\n
     the well. PW 3 Bhagwan employed appellant\/accused on monthly salary<\/p>\n
     of Rs.1400\/- p.m. The appellant was brought to PW 3 Bhagwan for this<\/p>\n
     employment by PW 5 Bhaidas.         The appellant was residing in the<\/p>\n
     machine house a month prior to the incident of occurrence. Along with<\/p>\n
     the appellant, one lady was also residing. Her name was ‘Khetalibai’<\/p>\n
     however PW 3 Bhagwan used to call her as ‘Bhabhi’. PW 8 Miss Swati<\/p>\n
     niece of PW 3 Bhagwan also corroborates the evidence of PW 3 Bhagwan<\/p>\n
     that appellant along with Bhabhi was residing in the Machine House. It<\/p>\n
     is pertinent to note that PW 3 Bhagwan and PW 8 Swati, are not claiming<\/p>\n
     that appellant and Bhabhi were husband and wife, neither they were<\/p>\n
     introduced to them as husband and wife. On 30th March, 2006 Bhabhi<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     had been to the house of PW 3 Bhagwan at 07.00 a.m, they informed PW<\/p>\n
     3 Bhagwan that they are going to their village and accordingly left. PW<\/p>\n
     3 Bhagwan further states that on 1st April, 2006 appellant and Bhabhi<\/p>\n
     returned to his agricultural land. PW 3 and his brother had been to the<\/p>\n
     agricultural land on 1st April, 2006, they met appellant. On their inquiry<\/p>\n
     appellant informed PW 3 that he returned back at 03.00 p.m. We have<\/p>\n
     also seen evidence of PW 8 Swati. According to her on 1 st April, 2006<\/p>\n
     she took lunch along with the appellant Bhabhi and others. After lunch<\/p>\n
     PW 8 Swati left for her home. In our opinion from the evidence of PW 3<\/p>\n
     Bhagwan and PW 8 Swati it can be fairly said that on 1st April, 2006 they<\/p>\n
     have seen Khetalibai alive in the company of the appellant however at<\/p>\n
     around 03.0 p.m. PW 3 Specifically gives time that he was informed by<\/p>\n
     the appellant that they returned at 3.00 p.m. PW 8 Swati claims that<\/p>\n
     she took lunch with appellant, Bhabhi and others on 01.04.2006. Thus,<\/p>\n
     it can be said that deceased Khetalibai was alive in the company of the<\/p>\n
     present appellant around 03.00 p.m. on 1st April, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           From the evidence of PW 8 Swati it appears that on 2nd<\/p>\n
     April, 2006 she found dead body of Khetalibai in Machine House. She<\/p>\n
     informed to PW 3 Bhagwan.       We have also seen evidence of PW 5<\/p>\n
     Bhaidas (Exhibit 20). This witness has identified the deceased person as<\/p>\n
     his mother Khetalibai. The investigating officer has recorded the First<\/p>\n
     information Report at the instance of PW 3 Bhagwan. It is at Exhibit 17.\n<\/p>\n
     This first information report is lodged by PW 3 Bhagwan on suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
     We have seen the spot panchnama Exhibit 13. This spot panchnama<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
     Exhibit 13 has been proved. From the spot panchnama, it appears that<\/p>\n
     Machine house is ad measuring 10×10 feet, having a door towards<\/p>\n
     northern side. In this Machine House, some articles were lying. They<\/p>\n
     was stone stained blood, wooden batten (Mogri) and axe.                 Wooden<\/p>\n
     Batten was also stained with blood.      Blade of Axe was also carrying<\/p>\n
     blood stains. The blood was spilled in this Machine house. Investigating<\/p>\n
     Officer and Panch witness also found some agricultural equipments i.e.<\/p>\n
     starter of electric motor etc. in the Machine House.          Along with this<\/p>\n
     Chulha and some house hold articles were also found.\n<\/p>\n
                        ig                                            Incriminating<\/p>\n
     articles i.e stone stained with blood, axe and wooden batten i.e. articles<\/p>\n
     no.1 to 3 were seized under panchnama. Among the panch witnesses<\/p>\n
     Raghunath Patil has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW<\/p>\n
     1 (Exhibit 12). Dead Body was sent for the postmortem report on behalf<\/p>\n
     of the prosecution. PW.9 Dr. Savkare is examined. He has proved the<\/p>\n
     postmortem report (Exhibit 27). From the postmortem report, following<\/p>\n
     were injuries noticed by PW 9 Dr. Savkare.\n<\/p>\n
     1)    Lacerated wound over forehead at left side above eyebrow
\n           oblique lee size 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
     2)    Lacerated wound over occipital region size 5 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
           with fracture of skull occipital regional and brain matter out<\/p>\n
           of skull.\n<\/p>\n
     3)    Lacerated wound over right wrist vertically size 3 cm x 2 cm x 1<\/p>\n
           cm with fracture radius.\n<\/p>\n
     4)    Lacerated wound over the left wrist size 5 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
           transversely.\n<\/p>\n
     5)    Lacerated wound over posterior aspect of shoulder left size 5 cm
\n           x 2 cm x 2 cm transversely.\n<\/p>\n
     6)    Abrasion over the knee both size anterior aspects 2 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
           From     the    evidence   of   inquest   panchnama         (Exhibit      21),
\n     Postmortem report (Exhibit 27) and oral evidence of Dr. Savkare, it is<\/p>\n
     clear that circumstance No. (I) unnatural death of Khetalibai is
\n     established on behalf of the prosecution. We have considered the
\n     evidence of Dr. Savkare PW9. We have taken into account proximity of<\/p>\n
     time, in relation to circumstance No. (II). This circumstance No.(II), in<\/p>\n
     our opinion, does not help the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
     9.             From the evidence of Investigating Officer PW 13 and spot<\/p>\n
     panchnama Exh.13, it appears that alleged incriminating articles i.e.<\/p>\n
     blood stained stone, axe and wooden batten (Mogri) were seized by the<\/p>\n
     prosecution.    This circumstance No.( III) i.e. seizure of incriminating<\/p>\n
     articles No. 1 to 3 however, is not material.        This is because, these<\/p>\n
     articles were seized under panchnama ( Exhibit 13 ) found lying in the<\/p>\n
     Machine House on 2nd April, 2006. In other words, these articles were<\/p>\n
     not discovered at the instance of appellant by resorting to Section 27 of<\/p>\n
     the Indian Evidence Act.     Another Aspect is that these articles were<\/p>\n
     forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer.        We have seen evidence of PW 7<\/p>\n
     Satyawan Bhaurao Pawar (Exhibit 24). He was Police Constable at the<\/p>\n
     relevant time, attached to Amalner Police Station. According to him, on<\/p>\n
     16.05.2006 he had received seized articles in crime No.39\/2006 for<\/p>\n
     carrying them to the office of Chemical Analyzer along with forwarding<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
     letter. From the evidence of PW 13, Mr Nagrale API, it is clear that on<\/p>\n
     03.04.2006 Constable Mr. Mahajan has produced clothes found on the<\/p>\n
     dead body of Khetalibai. The clothes were stained with blood. They<\/p>\n
     were seized under panchnama Exhibit 22.                     Thus, the alleged<\/p>\n
     incriminating No.1 to 3 i.e stone, wooden batten and axe stained with<\/p>\n
     the blood and the clothes were forwarded to Chemical Analyzer with PW<\/p>\n
     No.7 M. S.B. Pawar.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          PW 13 Mr. Shivdas Nagrale has been examined on behalf of<\/p>\n
     the prosecution to prove circumstance No (IV) i.e seizure of the shirt<\/p>\n
     stained with blood allegedly worn by the accused at the time of the<\/p>\n
     commission of the crime. This shirt was seized under panchnama and<\/p>\n
     was forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer.         From the record we have<\/p>\n
     noticed that Exhibit 40 is the communication addressed by the Chemical<\/p>\n
     Analyzer to police Inspector, Amalner Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
                  On   behalf   of   the    prosecution,    it    is   alleged      that<\/p>\n
     appellant\/accused while in custody, has made a disclosure statement<\/p>\n
     which led to discovery of his shirt concealed by him. Prosecution also<\/p>\n
     claims that this shirt was discovered at the instance of the appellant and<\/p>\n
     allegedly was worn by the appellant while committing the crime. This<\/p>\n
     shirt was stained with the blood. In support of this contention, on behalf<\/p>\n
     of the prosecution, reliance is placed on the evidence of PW 2 Mr. Pravin<\/p>\n
     Patil (Exhibit 12), panch witness and API Mr. Nagrale PW 13 Investigating<\/p>\n
     Officer.   We have seen memorandum (Exhibit 15) and discovery<\/p>\n
     panchnama of the shirt allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
     commission of crime (Exhibit 16). We have considered the admissible<\/p>\n
     part of evidence (Exhibit 15) i.e. memorandum. Such discovery of the<\/p>\n
     shirt in fact is from the agricultural land wherein standing crop was<\/p>\n
     found while recording such panchnama. Such discovery, in fact, cannot<\/p>\n
     be accepted to have been made under section 27 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
     However, this discovery which led in seizure of shirt is of no<\/p>\n
     consequence for the prosecution. This is because we have seen two<\/p>\n
     reports of the Serologist (Exhibit 40) and (Exhibit 41). Exhibit 41 report<\/p>\n
     of the Chemical Analyzer is dated 18.12.2006. This Chemical Analyzer<\/p>\n
     had received a bottle with blood labeled as ‘Blood of Khetalibai’. This<\/p>\n
     Chemical Analyzer has reported that blood group of the blood i.e<\/p>\n
     contained in the bottle could not be determined.                  Result was<\/p>\n
     inconclusive.   In other words, no blood group could be detected of<\/p>\n
     deceased Khetalibai by Chemical Analyzer. With great care and caution,<\/p>\n
     we have examined other Report also. This report clarifies that around<\/p>\n
     eight articles\/exhibits were received by the Chemical Analyzer stained<\/p>\n
     with blood. Among these eight exhibits three were alleged incriminating<\/p>\n
     articles i.e. wooden batten (Mogari), axe and stone. Two exhibits were<\/p>\n
     Saree and blouse Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 found on the dead body of<\/p>\n
     Khetalibai. Important was the exhibit 8 full Shirt allegedly worn by the<\/p>\n
     appellant at the time of commission of crime and discovered at the<\/p>\n
     instance of appellant under Section 27. Chemical Analyzer has reported<\/p>\n
     by this (Exhibit 40) that blood found on all these articles\/exhibits i.e.<\/p>\n
     Wooden Batten (Mogri), stone, axe, Saree, blouse and Shirt of the<\/p>\n
     accused found stained with human blood, however, blood group could<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
     not be determined.     Thus, if report (Exhibit 41) and (Exhibit 40) are<\/p>\n
     considered together only inference can be drawn that blood group of<\/p>\n
     deceased Khetalibai could not be determined and blood found on the<\/p>\n
     incriminating articles 1, 2, 3, Saree, Blouse and shirt of the accused also<\/p>\n
     could not be concluded. Clinching evidence that blood of deceased was<\/p>\n
     found on the shirt of accused\/appellant discovered at his instance, thus<\/p>\n
     could not be proved by the prosecution. This missing link or evidence<\/p>\n
     has faltered the prosecution case.           Resultantly, in our view,<\/p>\n
     circumstance No. (III) and (IV) could not be said to have been proved<\/p>\n
     on behalf of the prosecution. Thus, these two circumstances are not<\/p>\n
     proved against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     11.          According to prosecution, murder of Khetalibai had been<\/p>\n
     committed in the intervening night of 01.04.2006 to 02.04.2006. The<\/p>\n
     dead body of Khetalibai was found on 02.04.2006.            Indisputably, the<\/p>\n
     appellant was arrested on 08.04.2006, by Police Inspector Dayaram<\/p>\n
     Bhoite (Exhibit 37). Prosecution also claims that after occurrence i.e.<\/p>\n
     after 02.04.2006 accused was absconded.         According to PW 13, Mr.<\/p>\n
     Nagrale, he tried to trace the accused and came to know that accused<\/p>\n
     was admitted at the relevant time in hospital at village Badwali. He<\/p>\n
     accordingly visited place Bawni. It is not in dispute that investigation<\/p>\n
     was thereafter taken over by Mr. Nagrale, API on 11.04.2006. We have<\/p>\n
     also seen evidence of PW 14 Mr. Dayaram Bhoite P.I. After registration<\/p>\n
     of the crime, he carried out investigation for some time. According to<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
     him, he learnt that accused was admitted to the hospital, situated in a<\/p>\n
     State of Madhya Pradesh. On inquiry, he came to know that appellant<\/p>\n
     was discharged from the hospital. From the evidence, it appears that on<\/p>\n
     08.04.2006 accused was brought by the police. He has not testified as<\/p>\n
     to which police official or constable brought the accused to him, neither<\/p>\n
     said police officer is examined.         This PW 14 Bhoite recorded<\/p>\n
     supplementary statement of some witnesses and statement of Rekhabai<\/p>\n
     i.e. wife of the appellant. Thus, in our opinion, PW 13 Nagrale, did not<\/p>\n
     cause arrest of appellant on 08.04.2006. He did not search for accused.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Bhoite Police Inspector whose evidence, we have considered, is also<\/p>\n
     not helpful to the prosecution to prove circumstance No.(V) that accused<\/p>\n
     was absconding from 02.04.2006 till 08.04.2006. Except statement of<\/p>\n
     PW 13 API Nagrale that on 02.04.2006 accused was not present in a<\/p>\n
     Machine House, there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by<\/p>\n
     the prosecution to show that appellant was absconding. In our view, this<\/p>\n
     circumstance is also not proved by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
     12.          In our view, circumstance No.(I) i.e. unnatural death of<\/p>\n
     Khetalibai and circumstance No.(III) seizure of incriminating articles No.1<\/p>\n
     to 3 are of no consequence. Circumstance No.(IV) i.e. seizure of Shirt of<\/p>\n
     the accused is irrelevant. So far as last circumstance i.e. Abscondance<\/p>\n
     of the accused is also not proved on behalf of the prosecution beyond<\/p>\n
     reasonable doubt. In our view, conviction recorded by the trial court<\/p>\n
     needs to be quashed and set aside. Once, it is found that circumstance<\/p>\n
     No.(I), (III), (IV) and (V) are not proved on behalf of the prosecution,<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
     the appellant accused must get the benefit of doubt as held in the<\/p>\n
     matter of Jiten Besra Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2010 (2)<\/p>\n
     Supreme 244. At this stage, it is also apposite to rely on the judgment<\/p>\n
     of Apex Court in the matter of Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh Vs. State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2702. Facts in the<\/p>\n
     reported judgment are nearer to facts in the case on hand. Ratio of this<\/p>\n
     judgment squarely applies. We have considered the judgments cited on<\/p>\n
     behalf of respondent-State in the matter of Inayatulla Minoddin Shaikh<\/p>\n
     Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 867 and<\/p>\n
     another judgment in the matter of Sheikh Jahangir Ali s\/o Shaikh Burhan<\/p>\n
     Vs. State of Maharashtra through Police Station officer reported in 2001<\/p>\n
     (Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. 280.    We have also taken into account judgment<\/p>\n
     relied on behalf of the appellant-accused in the matter of State of<\/p>\n
     Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court page 144<\/p>\n
     (1).\n<\/p>\n
     13.          In view of the view which we have taken, the appeal filed<\/p>\n
     on behalf of the appellant requires to be allowed by quashing and<\/p>\n
     setting aside the judgment, conviction and sentence imposed upon the<\/p>\n
     appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     14.          The appeal is allowed.      Judgment of conviction and<\/p>\n
     sentence imposed upon the appellant in Sessions Case No.25\/2006 by<\/p>\n
     the Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, District Jalgaon<\/p>\n
     is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted for the offence of<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. His Bail Bonds stands canceled. Fine,<\/p>\n
     if paid, by the appellant be refunded to him. The appellant is set at<\/p>\n
     liberty\/ set free, if does not require in any other offence.\n<\/p>\n
     15.          We quantify Rs.3,000\/- (Rs. Three thousand only\/-) towards<\/p>\n
     fees and expenses to be paid to Shri S.K.Adkine, learned Advocate<\/p>\n
     (amicus curiae) for the appellant. He be paid accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                  We further direct Registrar (J) of this Court to transmit copy<\/p>\n
     of this judgment and order to the appellant today itself, through the<\/p>\n
     authority concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      (S.S.SHINDE,J.)                                  (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.)\n   \n\n\n\n                                       ****\n\n     aaa\/238.odt\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:55:00 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.238 OF 2008 Jamsing Hulya Barela, Age 50 years, R\/o Chilaya, Tq. and Dist. Badwani (Madhya Pradesh) At present […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAt Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-21T18:08:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T18:08:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":3765,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\",\"name\":\"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T18:08:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-21T18:08:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T18:08:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2"},"wordCount":3765,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2","name":"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T18:08:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/at-present-in-jail-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-may-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"At Present In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}