{"id":122405,"date":"1976-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976"},"modified":"2015-09-23T01:37:29","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T20:07:29","slug":"ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976","title":{"rendered":"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1537, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 428<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Shingal, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNINAJI RAOJI BOUDHA & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1537\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 428\n 1976 SCC  (2) 117\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian  Penal  Code  (Act\t45  of\t1860)  s.  34-common\nintention-Evidence showing  only intention to cause grievous\nhurt-Victim dying but no evidence as to. who caused the only\nfatal injury-If accused could be convicted under ss. 302 and\n34.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Nine accused  were charged\t with offences of murder and\ncausing hurt.  The trial  Court acquitted  two and convicted\nthe others  under ss.  325 and\t147, I.P.C. on appeal by the\nState, the  High Court\tconvicted the  two  appellants\talso\nunder s. 302 read with 8. 34. I.P.C.\n     Partly allowing their appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD: The\tHigh Court has not examined the liability of\nthe accused  with due  regard to the facts and circumstances\nof the\tcase. Instead  of giving  a categorical finding, the\nHigh Court  stated at  one place  in its-  judgment that the\nappellants must\t be taken to have had the knowledge that the\ninjury which  they intended  to\t cause\tto  the\t victim\t was\n\"likely to result\" in his death, and in an other place, that\nthe appellant  were guilty  of\tan  offence  under  s.\t300,\nfourthly, because  they \"ought\tto have known that their act\nwas so\timminently dangerous  having regard  to the  age and\ncondition  of\tthe  victim  that  their  act  must  in\t all\nprobability cause  death or  such bodily injury as is likely\nto cause  death.\" But  the evidence on record shows that the\nappellants did\tnot have  the common  intention of  giving a\nbeating to the deceased when they reached his house but were\nonly bent  upon settling  scores with  his son.\t It was only\nwhen the  deceased asked  another witness  to  get  ready  a\nbullock cart for making a complaint about the beating of his\nson that the appellants inflicted injuries on him. But there\nwas nothing  to show that their intention was to inflict any\nfatal injury.  Only one\t of the injuries was a forceful blow\non the\thead of\t the deceased  and it resulted on his death.\nBut the\t other injuries\t were on the back of the neck, knees\nand right elbow of the deceased and not on any vital part of\nthe body.  Therefore, the  appellants had  only\t the  common\nintention of  causing Grievous\thurt.  Since  there  was  no\nreliable evidence  to show  which of the two appellants gave\nthe fatal blow, the appellants could only be convicted of an\noffence under  s. 325 read with s. 34, I.P.C. [431F; 432C-D,\nP-G; 433E-434C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n181 of 1971
\n     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the  25th and  28th September, 1970 of the Bombay High
\nCourt Nagpur  Bench in\tCriminal Appeal\t No. 24 of 1968 with
\nCrl. A. No. 100 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
     Harjinder Singh, for the appellant
\n     S. B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SHINGHAL, J.-This\tis an  appeal of Ninaji Raoji Boudha
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  Ninaji) and Raoji Gianu Boudha
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  Raoji), against  the appellate
\njudgment of  the Bombay\t High Court  dated September  25\/28,
\n1970. The Additional Sessions
\n429<\/span>
\nJudge of  Khamgaon convicted  them of offences under ss. 325
\nand A 147 I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment
\nfor five  years and a fine of Rs. 50\/- for the offence under
\ns. 325,\t and to\t rigorous imprisonment\tfor six months and a
\nfine of\t Rs. 25\/-  for the  offence under  s. 147 I.P.C. The
\nHigh Court  held, on  appeal, that  they were  guilty of the
\noffence under  s. 302  read with  s. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced
\nthem  to  imprisonment\tfor  life  by  setting\taside  their
\nacquittal for ” the offence of murder of Bhonaji. Ninaji and
\nRaoji were  also convicted  for an  offence under s 325 read
\nwith s.149 I.P.C. for participating in the unlawful assembly
\nwhich was  held\t to  be\t responsible  for  causing  grievous
\ninjuries  to   Bhonaji’s  sons\tSamadhan  and  Rambhau,\t Mr.
\nHarjinder Singh,  Amicus Curiae,  stated on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants that\t he did\t not think it worthwhile challenging
\nthe conviction\tof appellants  Ninaji  and  Raoji  for\tthat
\noffence, and  that he  would confine  the  appeal  to  their
\nconviction for\tthe offence  under s.  302\/  34\t I.P.C.\t for
\ncausing the  death of  Bhonaji. We  would therefore  concern
\nourselves with\tthe incident  which  resulted  in  Bhonaji’s
\ndeath and the conviction of the appellants therefor.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellants Ninaji\tand  Raoji  were  two  out  of\tnine
\naccused who  were challaned  for the  commission of  various
\noffences in an incident which took place in mauza Narkhed in
\nBuldana district  on September 29, 1966, as a result of some
\npetty quarrel  between Bhonaji\tand his\t sons  Samadhan\t and
\nRambhau on  the one hand and the appellants and ;their party
\non the\tother. It was alleged that on September 29, 1966, at
\nabout 6\t p.m., there  was a quarrel between the two factions
\nat `Gothan’,  near the\thouse of  Bhonaji,  because  of\t the
\nimpounding of  a she  but also of Ananda (who was one of the
\nnine accused  in the  case) by\tBhonaji’s third son Madhukar
\nand of\tthe cow\t of Ninaji’s  nephew Narain.  lt was alleged
\nthat the  nine accused,\t including the\tpresent\t appellants,
\nwent to ‘gothan’. There was some altercation between accused
\nAnanda and-Samadhan  and the  parties  beat  each  other.  r
\nSamadhan and  his relations  then went to their house, which
\nwas close  – by. Samadhan, who had received some injuries at
\n‘gothan’, went inside his house to dress them up. His father
\nBhonaji sat  on an  ‘oota’ in  front of\t the  house.  It  is
\nalleged\t that  appellants  Ninaji  and\tRaoji,\tand  accused
\nParashram, gave a beating to Bhonaji at the oota as a result
\nof which  he fell  down, and  the remaining accused forcibly
\ntook Samadhan  to a  place near the house of one Trimbak and
\nbeat him  there. Reports  of the incident were lodged at the
\npolice station.\t . Bhonaji  succumbed  to  his\tinjuries  on
\nOctober 2,  1966. The police investigated and challaned nine
\naccused\t including   appellants\t Ninaji\t  and\tRaoji.\t The
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge convicted them all, but acquitted
\nParashram and  Ram Das.\t While accused Ninaji and Raoji were
\nconvicted and  sentenced as  aforesaid\tthe  remaining\tfive
\naccused were  convicted and sentenced for offences under ss.
\n325 and\t 147 I.P.C.  Or\/ and  325\/149 and  147 I.P.C. As has
\nbeen stated, this appeal is by Ninaji`and Raoji in regard to
\nthe incident  which took  place in  front of  the  house  of
\nBhonaji and resulted in his death.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  been argued  by Mr. Harjinder Singh that in its
\nappellate judgment  the High  Court lost  sight of  the fact
\nthat Bhonaji was present
\n     13-L522SCI\/76
\n430<\/span>
\nat the\tincident which\ttook place  at ‘gothan’, and that it
\nerred in  thinking that\t there was another incident in front
\nof the house of Bhonaji and that he was fatally beaten there
\nwhile sitting in his ‘oota’.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  been taken through the evidence on the record,
\nand we\tfind that there is no justification for the argument
\nthat the fatal injury was caused to Bhonaji at ‘gothan’, and
\nnot in\tfront  of  his\thouse.\tWe  have  gone\tthrough\t the
\nappellate judgment  of the  High Court, and we are satisfied
\nthat while  Bhonaji’s house  was quite\tnear  the  ‘gothan’,
\nthere can  be no  doubt that  the accused went to his house,
\nafter tho  beating which  had taken place at ‘gothan’. As we
\nshall show  in a  while, there is also satisfactory evidence
\nto prove that Bhonaji was sitting in front of his house when
\nhe was beaten there.\n<\/p>\n
     The  other\t argument  of  Mr.  Harjinder  Singh,  which
\nhowever\t requires  serious  consideration,  is\twhether\t the
\nappellants Ninaji  and Raoji  have rightly been convicted by
\nthe High Court for the offence under s. 302 1[‘ read with s.
\n34 I.P.C.  The finding\tof the High Court in this respect is
\nas follows,-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The evidence\t very clearly  shows that  these two
\n     persons …  were responsible for assaulting Bhonaji as
\n     a result of which Bhonaji died. It may be that they had
\n     in the  beginning no  common  object  or  intention  to
\n     assault  Bhonaji\tbut  it\t  does\t appear\t  from\t the
\n     circumstances that\t these two  persons, and  i’ may  be
\n     Parashram, formed a common intention at that moment and
\n     both of  them dealt  blows on  Bhonaji which  were – on
\n     vital parts  of the  body such  as head  and neck.\t The
\n     blows were\t given by  sticks though  the description of
\n     the sticks\t cannot be  known because  the sticks  which
\n     have been\trecover ed in this case cannot be said to be
\n     sticks connected  with the\t crime as such. But from the
\n     nature of\tthe blows  which were given on the person of
\n     Bhonaji, it  appears that\tthe sticks  were quite heavy
\n     and the  blows of\tthe sticks  actually resulted in the
\n     death of  Bhonaji. When  the blows\t were .,  given\t the
\n     accused must  have intended  to cause those injuries to
\n     Bhonaji. They  must be  taken to  have  knowledge\tthat
\n     Bhonaji was  an old  man and  on account  of the  blows
\n     given by  these accused  his death\t was  likely  to  be
\n     caused, particularly when the blows were given on vital
\n     parts of the body. They must be taken to have knowledge
\n     that the  injury they  intended to cause to Bhonaji was
\n     likely to\tresult in  the death   of Bhonaji. The post-
\n     mortem examination\t of Bhonaji  shows that\t there\twere
\n     several fractures\tand fissures  in the  p head and the
\n     blows must\t have been  dealt with\tquite an  amount  of
\n     force. The\t accused Nos.  6 and  7\t Ninaji\t and  Raoji,
\n     therefore, would  be guilty  of an\t offence which would
\n     come under\t section 300,  fourthly, because the accused
\n     Nos. 6  and 7 ought to have known that their act was so
\n     imminently dangerous  having  regard  to  the  age\t and
\n     condition of  the victim Bhonaji that their act must in
\n     all probability  r ;. cause death or such bodily injury
\n     as is likely to cause death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
431<\/span><\/p>\n
     A perusal\tof the\tjudgment shows\tthat while  the High
\nCourt took A the view, in the beginning, that the appellants
\nhad no\tcommon object  or intention  to assault\t Bhonaji, it
\ntook the  view that  they, and\tmay be\tParashram, “formed a
\ncommon intention  at that  moment.” It is not clear from the
\njudgment at  what moment-of  time such\ta  common  intention
\ncould be said to have been formed by them.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover, the  High Court\thas taken the view that both
\nthe appellants\tdealt blows on vital parts of Bhonaji’s body
\nwhich resulted\tin his\tdeath and  that when  the blows were
\ngiven  the  accused  “must  have  intended  to\tcause  those
\ninjuries to  Bhonaji” with  the knowledge that he was an old
\nman and\t his death  was likely\tto be caused by those blows.
\nTherefore  the\tquestion  which\t requires  consideration  is
\nwhether it could be said that there was any evidence to show
\nthat more  than one  blow was inflicted on any vital part of
\nBhonaji’s body and whether both the assailants could be said
\nto have\t inflicted the\tfatal injury with the knowledge that
\nit was likely to cause death. The High Court has stated that
\nthe post-mortem\t examination showed  that there were several
\nfractures and  assures in the head and that the “blows” must
\nhave been dealt with quite an amount of force. Then t it has
\nbeen further  held by  the High Court that the accused ought
\nto p  have known  that their action in inflicting the injury
\nwas “so\t imminently dangerous”\tas to  cause the death of an
\nold  person  like  Bhonaji.  As\t we  shall  show,  there  is
\njustification for  the argument\t that in  arriving  at\tthis
\ndecision the  High  Court  misread  the\t evidence  in  vital
\nparticulars and committed an apparent error of law as well.\n<\/p>\n
     It is not disputed before us that there was an incident
\nat ‘gothan’ where there was a beating between the parties of
\nthe accused  and Samadhan,  and that Samadhan and his father
\nBhonaji returned  to  –\t their\thouse  thereafter.  Samadhan
\n(P.W.19) has  himself stated  that he  went inside his house
\nwhile his  father Bhonaji  sat outside,\t and that;  when  he
\n(Samadhan) was tying a towel on his head to cover the injury
\nwhich had  been inflicted  at ‘gothan’,\t the  party  of\t the
\naccused came  to his  door and called him out. Sri Ram (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
5) and Sukhdev (P.W. 7) have stated much to the same effect.
\nThe evidence  on record\t therefore showed  that\t the  common
\nintention of  the appellants was to settle their scores with
\nSamadhan, and  not Bhonaji.  In fact the High Court has also
\nheld as follows,-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It does  not appear that any of these persons had
\n     initially any  idea of  assaulting\t either\t Bhonaji  or
\n     Rambhau, but  they seemed\tto be  only after  Samadhan.
\n     While Samadhan  was being\tasked to  come\tout  of\t the
\n     house, the\t deceased Bhonaji  must have  abused or said
\n     something which  infuriated some OF the accused persons
\n     and it  is on  account of\tthis, it appears that Ninaji
\n     and  Raoji\t  and  perhaps\t Parashram  directed   their
\n     attention to Bhonaji.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It cannot\ttherefore be  said that the common intention
\nof the\taccused was  to cause  the death of Bhonaji. In fact
\nthe statement  of Sri  Ram (P.W.  5) shows  that at the time
\nwhen the  accused came\tto  Bhonaji’s  house  in  search  of
\nSamadhan, Bhonaji was sitting on the platform or
\n432<\/span>
\n‘oota’. Sukhdev\t (P.W. -7)  has\t also  stated  to  the\tsame
\neffect, and  the statement  of Samadhan (P.W. 19) also shows
\nthat his  father was  sitting in  front of  the steps of the
\nhouse when  they asked Samadhan to come out of the house. It
\nis therefore  quite clear  that the  accused did  not give a
\nbeating to  Bhonaji  even  though  he  was  sitting  on\t the
\nplatform outside  his house.  On the other hand, they passed
\nhim by,\t while calling\tSamadhan to come out. They could not
\ntherefore be  said to have the common intention or object of
\ninflicting any injury on the person of Bhonaji till then.\n<\/p>\n
     It will  be recalled that the High Court has not stated
\nat what\t point d  time they could be said to have formed the
\ncommon intention  of causing  the death\t Bhonaji. It appears
\nfrom the statements of Rambhau (P.W. ‘1) and Tulsi Ram (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
10) that on returning from ‘gothan’ Bhonaji asked Tulsi Ram,
\nwho was a chowkidar, to make a report of the incident to the
\nPatil and  also to get a bullock cart ready for going to the
\npolice station.\t That appears  to be  the point of time when
\nthe accused  diverted their  attention to him and gave him a
\nbeating, but  there is\tnothing to show that their intention
\nwas to\tinflict any  fatal injury.  As has  been stated, the
\nHigh Court  has taken  the view\t that more than one blow was
\ngiven on  vital parts  of Bhonaji’s  body  and\tthat  caused
\nseveral fractures and fissures in the head.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  examined the  correctness of  that finding. It
\nhas been stated by Dr. Garge (P.W. 40) that he performed the
\npost-mortem examination on the dead body of Bhonaji and that
\non external  examination he noticed only one contusion 2″ in
\ndiameter on  the right\ttemporal region of the head. He made
\nan internal examination and found that there was a depressed
\nfracture of the skull, partly of the right temporal bone and
\nright parietal\tbone, and  fissured fractures  of  the\tleft
\nparietal, frontal  and occipital  bones the  lines of  which
\nwere “starting from the border of depressed fracture No. (1)
\nand going  away in  different  bones.”\tThe  witness  stated
\nfurther that  the depressed and fissured fractures were “due
\nto blow\t by some hard and blunt substance, or by a fall from
\nheight with  head downwards  on a  hard\t substance.”  It  is
\ntherefore quite\t clear that  there was\tonly one blow on the
\nhead which  caused  Bhonaji’s  death,  and  the\t High  Court
\nmisread the  evidence in  taking the view that more than one
\nblow was given on the head of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     This has  made it\tnecessary  for\tus  to\texamine\t the
\nfurther question  whether the  High Court  was justified  in
\nholding that  both the appellants were guilty of the offence
\nunder s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. Here again, we find that
\nthe evidence on the record has not been read correctly. Smt.
\nKalawati (P.W.\t2), Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3), SA Ram (P.W. S)
\nand Sukhdev  (P.W. 7)  have been  examined as eye witness of
\nthe beating  which was\tgiven to Bhonaji. The High Court has
\nheld that  their evidence  was “acceptable”,  and that there
\nwas “nothing  to cast  any doubt”  on their  evidence.\tSmt.
\nKalawati (P.W.\t2) stated  in the trial court that appellant
\nNinaji gave  two blows\tto Bhonaji with a stick, but did not
\nstate on  what parts of the body those blows were inflicted.
\nShe stated further that appellant Raoji gave a
\n433<\/span>
\nblow with  a stick  on Bhonaji’s  back, near  the neck:\t She
\nhowever admitted during her cross-examination that she could
\nnot, explain why she did not mention in her statement to the
\npolice that  Ninaji and\t Raoji gave  blows on any particular
\npart of Bhonaji’s body. Her statement could not therefore go
\nto prove that appellants Ninaji and Raoji inflicted injuries
\non the\thead of the deceased. We have examined the statement
\nof Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3) also. She is the daughter-in- law
\nof the deceased, being the-wife of Rambhau.  She stated that
\nshe had heard the noise, but came out only after feeding her
\nchild and  saw that Bhonaji` hat fallen down on his face and
\nthe appellants were running away. While her statement may go
\nto prove  the presence\tof the\tappellants at  the place  of
\nincident, it does not prove that both of them dealt blows on
\nthe head  of the  deceased. Sri\t Ram (P.W.  5)\tstated\tthat
\nappellant Ninaji  gave two blows with a stick on the head of
\nBhonaji, and that appellant Raoji gave a blow with a ‘khunt’
\nnear his  neck. In his cross-examination he admitted that he
\ndid not\t state before  the police  about the place where the
\nappellants dealt  blows with  their sticks  on the person of
\nBhonaji. His  statement could  not also\t therefore prove the
\ninfliction of  blows by\t both the  appellants on the head of
\nthe deceased.  That leaves the statement of Sukhdev (P.W. 7)
\nfor consideration.  He merely stated that while he could not
\nstate the  exact number of the accused or their features, he
\nsaw that,  out of seven or eight persons, three beat Bhonaji
\nwith sticks.  He did  not state\t about the infliction of any
\ninjury on  the head, by any of the appellants. It would thus
\nappear that  the High  Court could not possibly have reached
\nthe conclusion,\t on the\t basis of  the\tstatements  of\tSmt.
\nKalawati (P.W. 2), Smt. Deoki Bai (P.W. 3), Sri Ram (P.W. S)
\nand Sukhdev  (P.W. 7)  that more than one blow was inflicted
\non the\thead of the deceased, or that the one blow which was
\nfound there  as a  result of the post-mortem examination was
\ninflicted by the one or the other of the two appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence on record therefore went to show that the,
\nappellants did\tnot have  the common  intention of  giving a
\nbeating to  Bhonaji when  they reached his house for, as has
\nbeen shown,  they found him sitting outside the house on his
\n‘oota’ but  passed him\tby in  search of  Samadhan  who\t was
\ndressing his  injuries inside the house. Bhonaji asked Tulsi
\nRam Chowkidar  to make\ta report  and to get ready a bullock
\ncart for  going to  the police\tstation. It  was  then\tthat
\ninjuries were  inflicted an  his person\t by  the  appellants
\nNinaji and  Raoji. Out of those injuries, one was a forceful
\nblow on\t the head  which caused\t a  depressed  fracture\t and
\nfissures all  over, and\t resulted in  the ultimate  death of
\nBhonai; The  other injuries  were on  the neck\t(back side),
\nknees and  the right  elbow of\tthe deceased and were simple
\ninjuries. As  has been shown. there was no reliable evidence
\non the\trecord to  prove whether  the fatal blow on the head
\nwas caused  by Ninaji or Raoji. The other blows did not fall
\non any\tvital part  of the  body  and,\tin  the\t absence  of
\nevidence to  establish that  their common  intention was  to
\ncause death  it appears\t that the  appellants had the common
\nintention of causing  grievous injury with the lathi and the
\n‘khunt’. They  could therefore\tbe convicted  of an  offence
\nunder s. 325 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and not s. 302 read with
\ns. 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
434<\/span><\/p>\n
     It may  also be  mentioned that  while the\t High  Court
\nstated at  one place  that the\tappellants must\t be taken to
\nhave the  knowledge that  the injury  which they intended to
\ncause to  Bhonaji was  “likely to  result” in  his death, it
\nobserved at another place that the appellants were guilty of
\nan offence falling under section 300, fourthly, because they
\n“ought to  have known  that  their  act\t was  so  imminently
\ndangerous having  regard to  the age  and condition  of\t the
\nvictim Bhonaji\tthat their act must in all probability cause
\ndeath or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” No
\ncategorical finding  has therefore  been given\tby the\tHigh
\nCourt one  way or  the other. On the other hand, as has been
\nshown, the  liability of  the accused  has not been examined
\nwith due  regard to  the facts\tand circumstances  which had
\nbeen  clearly\testablished  on\t the  record  and  to  which
\nreference has been made above.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is therefore allowed to the extent that the
\nconviction of  the appellants  Ninaji and  Raoji is  altered
\nfrom section  302\/34 I.P.C.  to\t one  under  section  325\/34
\nI.P.C. and  they are  sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
\nfive  years   thereunder.  Their  sentences  shall  run\t con
\ncurrently.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed in part.\n435<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1537, 1976 SCR (3) 428 Author: P Shingal Bench: Shingal, P.N. PETITIONER: NINAJI RAOJI BOUDHA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1976 BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNinaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 - 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\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-22T20:07:29+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T20:07:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\"},\"wordCount\":3251,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\",\"name\":\"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T20:07:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 - 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\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-22T20:07:29+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976","datePublished":"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T20:07:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976"},"wordCount":3251,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976","name":"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T20:07:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ninaji-raoji-boudha-anr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 1976"}]},{"@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\/122405","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=122405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}