{"id":122088,"date":"2008-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008"},"modified":"2019-04-04T20:06:13","modified_gmt":"2019-04-04T14:36:13","slug":"prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Ranjana Desai, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION \n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.909 OF 2005\n                                 WITH \n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.962 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    CRI.APPEAL 909\/05:\n\n    Prashant Dattatraya Belapurkar.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Prisoner No.C\/-2919,\n    Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, \n                              \n    Dist. Kolhapur,\n    R\/o. Near\/Firangai Mandir,\n                             \n    Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur.                               ...Appellant.\n                            Vs.\n    The State of Maharashtra.                             ...Respondent.  \n                                    ....\n           \n\n    CRI.APPEAL 962\/05:\n        \n\n\n\n    Deepak Anil Mali.\n    Convict No.2918, \n    Kolhapur Central Prison,\n    R\/o. Fulewadi, 2nd Bus Stop, Kolhapur.                 ...Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n                            Vs.\n    The State of Maharashtra.                              ...Respondent.  \n                                    ....\n    Shri Ashokkumar N. Kotangle for the Appellants.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, APP for the Respondent.\n                                    .....\n                                    CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & \n                                            DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,  JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  August 30, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT : (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) :\n<\/p>\n
                 The  Additional  Sessions Judge,  Kolhapur,  by  a  judgment<\/p>\n
    dated   16th  April   2005,   convicted   the   Appellants     of   offences<\/p>\n
    punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section     34   of   the   Penal<\/p>\n
    Code   and   sentenced   them   to   imprisonment   for   life,   to     a   fine   of<\/p>\n
    Rs.500\/-   and   in   default,   to   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment   for   two<\/p>\n
    months.  The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Mahesh,<\/p>\n
    was engaged in the business of repairing two wheelers and resided at<\/p>\n
    Mangalwar Peth in Kolhapur  with his mother and two brothers.  The<\/p>\n
    accused   Nishikant,   Deepak   and   Prashant   (the   last   two   being   the<\/p>\n
    Appellants in these proceedings)  had lent and advanced an amount<\/p>\n
    of Rs.200\/- to Mahesh.  The accused were allegedly  visiting Mahesh<\/p>\n
    for the repayment of the amount.  On 17th November 2003, the three<\/p>\n
    accused came to the residence of Mahesh at 5 p.m. and called for<\/p>\n
    him.    Mahesh  was  then  on  the   first  floor  of  the  house.   Nishikant,<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    accused No.1, went to the first floor and brought Mahesh down to the<\/p>\n
    ground   floor.     All   the   three   accused   and   Mahesh   thereupon   went<\/p>\n
    away.  Mahesh was in the habit of returning home late at night and his<\/p>\n
    dinner was kept in a room on the first floor.  Mahesh and his brother<\/p>\n
    Ravindra used the room on the first floor.  When Ravindra woke up on<\/p>\n
    18th  November   2003   at   7   a.m.,   he   realised   that   Mahesh   had   not<\/p>\n
    returned home and the dinner had not been consumed.  At 8.45 a.m.<\/p>\n
    the   Police   from   Rajwada     Police   Station   came   to   the  house  and<\/p>\n
    informed Gajanan, the other brother of Mahesh that the dead body of<\/p>\n
    Mahesh has been found at Gandhi Maindan.  The body was removed<\/p>\n
    to the CPR Hospital, Kolhapur.  The deceased had suffered as many<\/p>\n
    as   nine   injuries   including   contused   lacerated   wounds   and   incised<\/p>\n
    wounds.   The FIR was lodged on 18th  November 2003 by Gajanan<\/p>\n
    (PW 3) who was the brother of the deceased.  Investigation was taken<\/p>\n
    up   and   the   accused   were   arrested   on   18th  November   2003.     The<\/p>\n
    clothes   on   the   person   of   the   accused   were   seized   under   a<\/p>\n
    panchanama.   A bottle of alcohol and a glass were found in close<\/p>\n
    proximity to the place where the dead body had been found.   The<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    bottle and the glass were forwarded to a finger-print Expert through<\/p>\n
    the   Superintendent   of   Police,   Kolhapur,   by   a   letter   at   Exh.72.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused Nishikant furnished a statement to the Police which led to<\/p>\n
    the discovery of a barber’
\n                             s razor (Vastara) which was found near a<\/p>\n
    cement pipe in close proximity to a toilet at Gandhi Maidan where the<\/p>\n
    body had been found.   The muddemal properties were forwarded to<\/p>\n
    the  Chemical  Analyser  whose  report  was   obtained.  Three   accused<\/p>\n
    including the Appellants before this Court were tried on the charge of<\/p>\n
    murder.     The   prosecution   examined   sixteen   witnesses.     The<\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge   found the accused guilty under Section<\/p>\n
    302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to<\/p>\n
    imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          On behalf of the Appellants, it has been submitted that the<\/p>\n
    case of the prosecution  has rested on circumstantial evidence.  The<\/p>\n
    chain   of   circumstances,   it   is   urged,   linking   the   accused   with   the<\/p>\n
    commission of   offence is not   complete.   It  is submitted that   the<\/p>\n
    blood group of the deceased was not established; the role played by<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
    each of the accused was not proved and the body was found in a<\/p>\n
    public Maidan.   On the other hand, the Learned APP submitted that<\/p>\n
    PW 3,  the brother of the  deceased and PW  10, the mother of the<\/p>\n
    deceased    consistently deposed  to the fact  that    at 5  p.m.  on 17th<\/p>\n
    November 2003   the accused had come to their residence and that<\/p>\n
    they had taken the deceased with them.  It was urged that the motive<\/p>\n
    was established since the accused had lent and advanced money to<\/p>\n
    the deceased of which they were seeking repayment.   The Learned<\/p>\n
    APP urged that the accused were arrested soon after the offence on<\/p>\n
    18th November 2003;  the clothes of the accused were seized under a<\/p>\n
    seizure panchanama and were found to be bloodstained.  The report<\/p>\n
    of the Chemical Analyser shows that  the clothes which were worn by<\/p>\n
    accused   Deepak   (the   Appellant   in   Appeal   962   of   2005)   had<\/p>\n
    bloodstains of blood group ‘
\n                               B’ which corresponded to the blood which<\/p>\n
    was   found   on   the   muddemal   property,   namely,   the   stone   and   the<\/p>\n
    barber’
\n          s   razor.     In   so   far   as     accused   Prashant   (the   Appellant   in<\/p>\n
    Appeal 909 of 2005) is concerned, it was  urged that the evidence of<\/p>\n
    the  finger-print   expert   establishes  the   finger   prints  of   the   aforesaid<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    accused on the wine bottle and glass which were found at the scene<\/p>\n
    of offence.  Neither of the Appellants have in their statements under<\/p>\n
    Section   313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claimed that<\/p>\n
    they had suffered injuries or that there was a scuffle or that they had<\/p>\n
    exercised   the right of self defence.   In other words, it was not the<\/p>\n
    contention of any of the accused that the blood on the bloodstained<\/p>\n
    clothes   was   their   own   blood,   due   to   injuries   sustained   during   the<\/p>\n
    course of a scuffle.   Thus, it was urged that the oral evidence of PW<\/p>\n
    3 and PW 10 who had seen the accused taking away the deceased at<\/p>\n
    5   p.m.   on   17th  November   2003   coupled   with   the   corroborative<\/p>\n
    evidence of the finger-print expert, PW 13, Atmaram Angre and the<\/p>\n
    report of the Chemical Analyser would link the accused to the crime<\/p>\n
    and establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    As many as nine injuries were found during the course of post mortem<\/p>\n
    and the evidence of PW 11, Dr.Ruikar, was that these injuries were<\/p>\n
    capable of being  caused  by a razor, or as the case may be, by a<\/p>\n
    stone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.          In assessing the merits of the rival contentions, it would be<\/p>\n
    in order to advert to the salient aspects of the oral evidence.   PW 3<\/p>\n
    Gajanan was  the brother of  the  deceased.   The  deceased resided<\/p>\n
    with   PW   3     together   with   his   mother   and   another   brother.   PW   3<\/p>\n
    deposed   that   at   5   p.m.   on   17th  November   2003,   the   accused   had<\/p>\n
    come to their house and had called for the deceased Mahesh, who<\/p>\n
    was also known as Bajrang.  P.W. 3 stated that he stood outside the<\/p>\n
    house   and   had   seen   each   of   the   accused   who   were     friends   of<\/p>\n
    Mahesh.   PW 3 deposed that a loan of Rs.200\/-   was obtained by<\/p>\n
    Mahesh   from   the   accused   and   the   accused   had   been   visiting   the<\/p>\n
    house to take back that  amount.  On 17th November 2003, Nishikant,<\/p>\n
    one of the three accused, went to the first floor and brought Mahesh<\/p>\n
    down, after which the accused and Mahesh went away together.   PW<\/p>\n
    3 was informed by the Police the next morning of the discovery of the<\/p>\n
    dead   body   of   Mahesh   at   Gandhi   Maidan.     PW   10,   Vatsala,     the<\/p>\n
    mother of the deceased, was also present at home on 17th November<\/p>\n
    2003 and deposed in terms similar to what was stated by PW 3.  The<\/p>\n
    oral   depositions   of   PW   3   and   PW   10   have   established   that   the<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    accused were known to the deceased; that on 17th  November 2003,<\/p>\n
    the   accused   had   come   to   the   house   of   the   deceased;   that   some<\/p>\n
    amount had been borrowed by the deceased from the accused which<\/p>\n
    the accused were demanding back and that at or about 5 p.m. the<\/p>\n
    deceased had left home together with the accused, including the two<\/p>\n
    Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    4.<\/p>\n
               The body of the victim was found at or around 7 a.m. on<\/p>\n
    18th  November 2003 by PW 12, Dattaji Tipugade, who had gone to<\/p>\n
    the Gandhi Maindan for exercise.  He deposed that he had noticed a<\/p>\n
    dead body lying on the earth behind the toilet at the Maidan and he<\/p>\n
    intimated this  fact  to the Rajwada Police  Station  on the telephone;\n<\/p>\n
    besides bringing it to the notice of the watchman.  Following the arrest<\/p>\n
    of the accused on 18th  November 2003, a recovery was effected on<\/p>\n
    19th  November 2003 of a razor (Article 15) from near a cement pipe<\/p>\n
    near the toilet.    The razor was seized under a seizure panchanama<\/p>\n
    (Exh.27).  The clothes worn by the accused came to be seized under<\/p>\n
    a   seizure   panchanama   (Exh.16).     The   seizure   panchanama   of   the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    clothes worn by the accused (Exh.16) which was proved in evidence<\/p>\n
    through PW 1 Santosh Pisal shows that   bloodstains were found on<\/p>\n
    the   clothes   worn   by   both   the   Appellants.     The   panchanama   was<\/p>\n
    recorded   between   1515   hours   and   1645   hours   on   18th  November<\/p>\n
    2003.       One   important   link   in   the   case   of   the   prosecution   is   the<\/p>\n
    presence   of   bloodstains   on   the     clothes   which   were   worn   by   the<\/p>\n
    accused.     The   accused,   as   noted   earlier,   were   arrested   on   18th<\/p>\n
    November 2003  soon after the offence.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          The clothes worn by the accused as well as the muddemal<\/p>\n
    property were submitted for chemical analysis.   These articles were<\/p>\n
    forwarded   for   chemical   examination   on   29th  November   2003   vide<\/p>\n
    Exhibit 74.  The report of the Chemical Analyser showed bloodstains<\/p>\n
    of blood group ‘
\n                   B’ on the stone and the razor.  In so far as the clothes<\/p>\n
    which were worn by accused Deepak are concerned, they too showed<\/p>\n
    the  presence   of   bloodstains  of   blood   group   ‘
\n                                                           B’.       In   the   statement<\/p>\n
    under   Section     313   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   the<\/p>\n
    accused denied that any bloodstains whatsoever were found on the<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
    clothes   which   were   seized   under   the   seizure   panchanama.\n<\/p>\n
    Significantly, it was not the case of the accused that he had suffered<\/p>\n
    any injury which had resulted in bleeding or that there was a scuffle or<\/p>\n
    for that matter, that he had exercised the right of self defence.  There<\/p>\n
    was a blatant denial by the accused of any bloodstains on the clothes<\/p>\n
    worn  at the time of arrest.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
                The next important link in the case of the prosecution is the<\/p>\n
    evidence of the finger-print expert, PW 13, Atmaram Angre.  PW 13 is<\/p>\n
    a Government servant at the Finger Print Bureau and he has, during<\/p>\n
    the course of  his deposition, testified  that the  finger prints found on<\/p>\n
    the   glass   and   bottle   of   alcohol   were   those   of   accused   –   Appellant<\/p>\n
    Prashant.     Both   the   bottle   and   the   glass   were   recovered   from   the<\/p>\n
    place where the dead body of Mahesh was found.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          The medical evidence of PW 11, Dr.Ruikar, who conducted<\/p>\n
    the post mortem, shows that the deceased had suffered as many as<\/p>\n
    nine injuries which were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
     “1) C.L. W. frontal region-Right side-5.1 x 2.3 x bone deep.\n<\/p>\n
     2) C.L. W. Lateral margin of right eye-brow – 2.1 x 0.8 cm. x<\/p>\n
     bone deep.\n<\/p>\n
     3) Incised wound-below right eye-5.3 cm. x 1.6 cm. x bone<\/p>\n
     deep.\n<\/p>\n
     (Marcins gaping).\n<\/p>\n
     4) C. L. W. – Lateral margin of base of right nostril 1.9 x 0.6<\/p>\n
     cm x bone deep.\n<\/p>\n
     5) C. L. W. – above lateral end of upper lip right side – 1.2 x<\/p>\n
     0.4 cm. x bone deep.\n<\/p>\n
     6)   Incised  wound   –  in   front  of   right   ear   involving   Rt.   ear<\/p>\n
     Right tragus lost 8.2 x 2.9 cm  x bone deep (Margin gaping)<\/p>\n
     7) C. L. W. below chin – centrally – 2.1 x 0.6 cm x bone<\/p>\n
     deep.\n<\/p>\n
     8)Abrasion right sterno-clavicular joint horizontal – lin ear –\n<\/p>\n
     4.1 x 0.2 cm. colour of injuries  1 to 8 – dark red.\n<\/p>\n
     9) Dislocation upper 2 – central incisears – on examination<\/p>\n
     vital reaction – colour – dark red.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    The   deceased   was   also   found   to   have   suffered   internal   injuries<\/p>\n
    including a fracture on the skull.   Some of the external injuries were<\/p>\n
    contused   while   others   were   incised.     PW   11   deposed   that   the<\/p>\n
    contused wounds were capable of being caused by a stone and that it<\/p>\n
    was likely that  the skull would be smashed as a result of an assault<\/p>\n
    by   a   stone.     The     incised   injuries   were   attributed   to   the   razor   or<\/p>\n
    Vastara.   The injuries sustained by the deceased, PW 11 deposed,<\/p>\n
    were the cause of death.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          The prosecution has established all the necessary links in<\/p>\n
    terms of circumstantial evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.   These<\/p>\n
    circumstances are: (i) The deceased was last seen together with the<\/p>\n
    accused at 5 p.m. on 17th November 2003 at his residence by PW 3<\/p>\n
    who was  his brother and by his mother, PW 10, and had left his place<\/p>\n
    of   residence   together   with   the   accused;   (ii)   The   accused   were<\/p>\n
    arrested   on   18th  November   2003   soon   after   the   offence   and   the<\/p>\n
    clothes worn by them were seized under a seizure panchanama; (iii)<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
    The  clothes  which  were worn by the accused had bloodstains; (iv)<\/p>\n
    The   bloodstains   on   the   clothes   worn   by   accused   the   Appellant   –\n<\/p>\n
    Deepak,   belonged   to   blood   group   ‘
\n                                              B’  and   corresponded   to   the<\/p>\n
    grouping of the bloodstains found on the muddemal property, namely,<\/p>\n
    the  stone and the razor; (v) The medical evidence shows that death<\/p>\n
    was caused due to the injuries sustained by the deceased through the<\/p>\n
    razor and the stone; (vi) The evidence of finger-print expert, PW 13,<\/p>\n
    shows that the finger prints on the glass found together with the bottle<\/p>\n
    of alcohol at the place where the dead body was located, belonged  to<\/p>\n
    accused   Prashant;   (vii)   In   the   statement   under   Section     313,   the<\/p>\n
    accused chose to deny that any  bloodstains existed at all and it was<\/p>\n
    not the case that   the bloodstains on the clothes related to injuries<\/p>\n
    suffered by them during the course of  a scuffle or while exercising the<\/p>\n
    right   of   self   defence.     The   case   of   the   prosecution   rested   on<\/p>\n
    circumstantial   evidence,   and   all   the   links   in   the   case   of   the<\/p>\n
    prosecution have been established beyond  reasonable doubt.   The<\/p>\n
    circumstantial   evidence   is   consistent   with   the   guilt   of   the   accused<\/p>\n
    alone.     It   is   a   settled   principle   of   law   that     in   a   case   based   on<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
    circumstantial   evidence,   the     chain   of   circumstances   must   be<\/p>\n
    complete and must be consistent with only   one possible inference,<\/p>\n
    namely, the guilt of accused.  That requirement has been duly fulfilled<\/p>\n
    the present case.   The prosecution has established its case beyond<\/p>\n
    reasonable doubt.  The judgment of the Learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
    Judge does not suffer from any infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
    9.<\/p>\n
              There   is   no   merit   in   the   appeals   which   shall   accordingly<\/p>\n
    stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                      ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI,  J.)<\/p>\n
                                      ( DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:48:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 Bench: Ranjana Desai, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.909 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.962 OF 2005 CRI.APPEAL 909\/05: Prashant Dattatraya Belapurkar. Prisoner No.C\/-2919, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Dist. […]<\/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-122088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 - 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\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-04T14:36:13+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prisoner No.C\\\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T14:36:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2322,\"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\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Prisoner No.C\\\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T14:36:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prisoner No.C\\\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 - 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\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-04T14:36:13+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T14:36:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008"},"wordCount":2322,"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\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008","name":"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T14:36:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prisoner-no-c-2919-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-30-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prisoner No.C\/-2919 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/122088","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=122088"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122088\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}