{"id":123713,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-10T23:37:24","modified_gmt":"2018-09-10T18:07:24","slug":"in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                  1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n                  NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                                          \n    Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2005\n\n\n\n    Appellants    :    1) Deepak @ Oharilal Joshi, aged\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                       about 20 years\n\n                       2) Ghanshyam Oharilal Joshi, aged\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n                       about 27 years\n                      \n                       3) Bindra Oharilal Joshi, aged\n\n                       about 23 years,\n                     \n                       4) Gopal Oharilal Joshi, aged\n\n                       about 36 years,\n\n                       5) Gokul Oharilal Joshi, aged about\n      \n\n\n                       30 years\n   \n\n\n\n                       6) Girjashankar Ramgopal Sharma, aged\n\n                       about 40 years,\n\n\n\n\n\n                       All residents of Mehandibag,\n\n                       Jaybhole Nagar, P.S. Panchpaoli,\n\n                       Nagpur (All in Jail)\n\n\n\n\n\n                       versus\n\n    Respondent    :    The State of Maharashtra, through<\/pre>\n
                       Police Station Officer, Panchpaoli,<\/p>\n
                       Nagpur<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Mr A.V. Gupta, Advocate for appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    Ms B.P. Maldhure, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.\n<\/p>\n
                     Coram :    A.H. Joshi and A.R. Joshi, JJ\n\n                     Date of reserving judgment          : 20.10.2010\n\n<\/pre>\n
                     Date of pronouncing judgment : 28.10.2010<\/p>\n
    Judgment (Per A.R. Joshi, J)<\/p>\n
    1.
\n              Present criminal appeal is preferred by all the<\/p>\n
    six accused against the judgment and order of conviction<\/p>\n
    passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.                    The<\/p>\n
    impugned judgment and order was passed in Sessions Trial<\/p>\n
    No. 422 of 2002 on 6th December 2004.       By the said judgment<\/p>\n
    and order, all the six accused were convicted for the<\/p>\n
    offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 147 and 148<\/p>\n
    of the Indian Penal Code.         The major punishment awarded<\/p>\n
    against    the    appellants\/accused       is     that         of       life<\/p>\n
    imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000\/-, in default, to suffer<\/p>\n
    further   rigorous   imprisonment    for   six     months        for      the<\/p>\n
    offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149<\/p>\n
    of the Indian Penal Code and six months and fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    500\/- for offences each under Sections 147 and 148 of the<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code.         Accused were, however, acquitted of<\/p>\n
    the offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section<\/p>\n
    25 of the Arms Act and Section 37 (1) read with Section<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    135 of the       Bombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
              The State of Maharashtra did not prefer appeal<\/p>\n
    against the said acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
    2.        Heard rival arguments at length.             Perused record<\/p>\n
    & proceedings of the matter and also perused the reasoning<\/p>\n
    given by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge while<\/p>\n
    holding all the accused guilty of the offence punishable<\/p>\n
    under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code<\/p>\n
    and other allied offences.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        The    case   of   prosecution,   in     nutshell,          is     as<\/p>\n
    under.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        All the accused are residents of Mehandibagh,<\/p>\n
    Joshipura within the limits of Panchpaoli Police Station,<\/p>\n
    Nagpur.      Accused nos. 1 to 5 are sons of real sister-in-\n<\/p>\n
    law whereas accused no. 6 is the real brother-in-law of<\/p>\n
    complainant     Jaiwantibai.      Complainant       Jaiwantibai            was<\/p>\n
    residing at Yerkheda, Gondpura, Kamptee, District Nagpur<\/p>\n
    with her two sons i.e. deceased Rakesh and Rajesh and a<\/p>\n
    daughter by name Rekha.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        The    incident    of   deadly    assault        on     deceased<\/p>\n
    Rakesh occurred in a broad day-light in the afternoon on<\/p>\n
    13th May 2002.     On that afternoon, at about 12.00 noon,<\/p>\n
    Rakesh went with his mother Jaiwanti (P.W.1) to the house<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
    of    one    Amrutlal       Joshi      (P.W.      6).      There       was        mundan<\/p>\n
    ceremony at the house of Amrutlal Joshi.                           Deceased Rakesh<\/p>\n
    came back on his motor-cycle after leaving his mother for<\/p>\n
    the   said     ceremony.           When     he    was     coming      back,       he     was<\/p>\n
    assaulted by all accused persons near grocery shop.                                   After<\/p>\n
    the initial assault, Rakesh ran towards the court-yard of<\/p>\n
    Kasubai (P.W. 9), all the accused chased him with weapons<\/p>\n
    in    hand     and    in     the       court-yard        of    Kasubai,          he      was<\/p>\n
    assaulted by hitting him with slab of grinding stone and<\/p>\n
    grinding boulder which are Article Nos. 5,6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
    said assault, deceased Rakesh died on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       Due to<\/p>\n
    6.            Rakesh had sustained almost 24 injuries amongst<\/p>\n
    which       major    injuries         are   two    lacerated          wounds,         eight<\/p>\n
    contusions and contused abrasions, eight stab wounds and<\/p>\n
    six incise wounds                on all parts of the body, commuted<\/p>\n
    fracture       to    skull       of    vault      involving        all      bones        and<\/p>\n
    radiating downward, forward to involve the middle caranial<\/p>\n
    fossa,      transversing         horizontally           involving        the      greater<\/p>\n
    wind of sphonord laterally and body of sphenoid in the<\/p>\n
    median area and were injuries to the brain.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            As per the case of prosecution, said assault was<\/p>\n
    witnessed       by    almost       five     eye     witnesses          i.e.       P.W.       1<\/p>\n
    Jaiwantibai,         P.W.    2    Kavita        (cousin     sister       of     deceased<\/p>\n
    Rakesh), P.W. 3 Tarak, P.W. 4 Roshan and P.W. 11 Rekha,<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    real sister of deceased Rakesh.\n<\/p>\n
    8.             At or about 01.00 pm, after witnessing that the<\/p>\n
    Rakesh was being assaulted, P.W. 2 Kavita rushed to the<\/p>\n
    house      of      Amrutlal       and   informed         P.W.       1    Jaiwantabai<\/p>\n
    regarding       assault    on    Rakesh.         P.W.    1    Jaiwantabai             then<\/p>\n
    rushed    to    the     spot.     Complainant           saw    all       the    accused<\/p>\n
    persons assaulting her son Rakesh by use of weapons like<\/p>\n
    knife and grinding stones i.e. articles 5,6 and 7.                                     She<\/p>\n
    tried<\/p>\n
    accdused.\n<\/p>\n
             to     intervene,\n\n                    After\n                             \n                             the\n                                    however,\n\n                                    assault,     all\n                                                     was    warded\n\n                                                           the    accused\n                                                                         away       by\n\n                                                                                   left\n                                                                                           the\n\n                                                                                           the\n                            \n    spot.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    9.             According to the complainant, present incident<\/p>\n
    was also seen by Vijay Joshi (P.W.8) who is also a pancha<\/p>\n
    witness and also eye witness Tarak (P.W. 3) and Roshan<\/p>\n
    (P.W. 4), an eye witness. Rukhmibai (P. W. 7) was alleged<\/p>\n
    eye witness.\n<\/p>\n
    10.             P.W. 1 Jaiwantabai lodged complaint to police<\/p>\n
    which    was    treated    as First         Information Report                 (exhibit<\/p>\n
    35).    Offence was registered at Crime No. 249\/02.\n<\/p>\n
    11.            During     investigation,           spot         panchanama             was<\/p>\n
    prepared.        Articles       5,6   and    7    which       are       the    grinding<\/p>\n
    stones,        one dupatta and foot-wear were                   taken charge of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Inquest panchanama (exhibit 21) was drawn.                           Dead body of<\/p>\n
    Rakesh was sent for post-mortem at Mayo Hospital, Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
    12.             Accused nos. 1,3 and 4 were arrested in the<\/p>\n
    same afternoon. One knife was seized from the possession<\/p>\n
    of accused no. 1 Deepak under the panchanama (exhibit 44.\n<\/p>\n
    P.W.    3    Tarak     who   is   also   an    eye     witness,        acted       as    a<\/p>\n
    pancha.         P.W. 3 Tarak also acted as a pancha witness for<\/p>\n
    recovery of knife respectively from accused nos. 2, and 3<\/p>\n
    on 15th May 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
                              ig Said recovery was under Section 27 of<\/p>\n
    13.           Other accused were arrested on the next day i.e.<\/p>\n
    on 14th May 2002.            Clothes of the deceased and clothes of<\/p>\n
    the     accused        persons      were       taken      charge          of      under<\/p>\n
    panchanamas. One saree of Smt Rukhmibai was also taken<\/p>\n
    charge of under the panchanama.\n<\/p>\n
    14.           During     investigation,         statements           of      P.W.       11<\/p>\n
    Rekha, elder sister of deceased Rakesh was recorded by<\/p>\n
    taking the help of one interpretor Madhurika (P.W. 10) as<\/p>\n
    Rekha is dumb and deaf.             During investigation, clothes and<\/p>\n
    weapons were sent for opinion of the medical officer.                                   So<\/p>\n
    also,       articles    were      sent   for    chemical         analysis.              On<\/p>\n
    completion       of     investigation,          charge-sheet             was      filed<\/p>\n
    against all the accused for the offence of murder, rioting<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
    and unlawful assembly.             Matter was committed to the Court<\/p>\n
    of    Sessions    being       Sessions       Trial      No.    422\/02        and     after<\/p>\n
    recording evidence of 14 witnesses for prosecution and 3<\/p>\n
    witnesses      for     defence,    impugned judgment                 and order           was<\/p>\n
    passed.\n<\/p>\n
    15.         P.W. 3 did not support the case of prosecution<\/p>\n
    so far as seizure of knife from accused no.1 is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    Rukhminibai       (P.W.       7)   turned      hostile          to     the      case       of<\/p>\n
    prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    16.         Provisional post-mortem report (exhibit 25) and<\/p>\n
    final post-mortem report (exhibit 27) are admitted by the<\/p>\n
    accused during trial.\n<\/p>\n
    17.         During        arguments,         learned          Advocate         for       the<\/p>\n
    appellants\/accused raised following points :\n<\/p>\n
          (i)            Exhibit 35 is not the First Information.
\n          Police     had    arrived     on   the       spot       and     had      made<\/p>\n
          enquiry with P.W. 1 Jaiwantabai and other persons
\n          and   it    was     ascertained         as     to       the     names       of
\n          assailants        and    commission          of      the       cognizable
\n          offence    i.e.     murder.    What      was      reported          on    the
\n          spot is     FIR     whether recorded or not.                      However,
\n          FIR was not recorded on the spot.                        As such, the
\n          alleged FIR exhibit 35 being in the nature of
\n          statement recorded by police, cannot be treated<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
          as     a     document    which        can   be      used       by      the
\n          prosecution for corroboration and it can only be<\/p>\n
          used        for     contradiction           or       omission            as
\n          contemplated under Section 162 of the Criminal<\/p>\n
          Procedure Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (ii)          Independent witnesses are not examined<\/p>\n
          though according to all the prosecution witnesses
\n          who    had    allegedly      witnessed       the      incident          and
\n          large crowd had gathered on the spot during the
\n          incident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (iii)
\n                        There are inter-se contradictions in the
\n          evidence of eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          11.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          (iv)          Eye witnesses are falsified by medical
\n          evidence on record.           More-so, when allegedly the<\/p>\n
          grinding stones (Articles 5,6 and 7) were used by<\/p>\n
          the assailants and were dropped on the head of
\n          the deceased when he was lying on the ground with
\n          his face downward.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (v)           Defence witnesses examined on behalf of
\n          the     accused      ought   to   have      been       accepted          as
\n          trustworthy and plea of alibi raised by accused<\/p>\n
          nos. 3 and 4 should have been accepted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    18.              In order to narrow down the discussion on the<\/p>\n
    points raised by the defence, certain admitted position<\/p>\n
    can be referred as under :\n<\/p>\n
           (i)              Four witnesses have turned hostile to<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
     the case of prosecution viz. P.W. 5 Shivprasad,
\n     P.W. 7 Rukhmibai, P.W.8 Vijay and P.W. 9 Kasobai.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)        P.W. 5 Shivprasad allegedly took part<\/p>\n
     as pancha during seizure of grinding stones vide
\n     exhibit    47,     clothes      of     deceased          Rakesh         vide
\n     exhibit 48, clothes of accused no. 6 vide exhibit<\/p>\n
     49, clothes of accused no. 3 vide exhibit 50,
\n     clothes of accused no. 5 vide exhibit 51, clothes
\n     of accused no. 4 vide exhibit 52, clothes of
\n     accused no. 1 vide exhibit 53 and clothes of<\/p>\n
     accused no. 2 vide exhibit 54.                     As such, P.W. 5
\n     Shivprasad
\n                      did      not        support
\n     prosecution so far as seizure of clothes of all
\n                                                          the       case        of<\/p>\n
     the six accused is concerned and also did not<\/p>\n
     support the case of prosecution as to recovery of
\n     grinding stones and clothes of the victim.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)       Rukhminibai         (P.W.     7)      did      not    support<\/p>\n
     the case of prosecution inasmuch as she denied
\n     having seen the accused persons running away with
\n     weapons after the incident of assault and also<\/p>\n
     denied that due to physical confrontation with
\n     accused    no.1,    her    saree       was     blood-stained             and
\n     that it was seized by the police.\n<\/p>\n
     (iv)        P. W. 8 Vijay is alleged eye witness
\n     and also acted as a pancha, but did not support
\n     the case of prosecution.               He denied having seen
\n     accused persons running behind deceased Rakesh
\n     and at that time they were holding weapons.                                He
\n     also    denied     as   to      accused        persons         assaulted
\n     deceased     Rakesh       by    means        of      said        weapons.
\n     However, he has admitted that he saw deceased<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
            Rakesh running by the lane adjoining to his house
\n            and mother of Rakesh was running behind him and<\/p>\n
            Rakesh fell on the ground in the court-yard of
\n            Kasubai and had sustained bleeding injuries.\n<\/p>\n
            (v)         Kasubai          (P.W.       9)   is        alleged         eye\n            witness,    but        did    not       support       the      case       of\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n            prosecution.       She denied witnessing the incident\n            of    assault   on     deceased         Rakesh     by    the     accused\n            persons.     However, she deposed that Jaywantibai\n<\/pre>\n
            (P.W. 1), mother of deceased Rakesh came to her<\/p>\n
            house and she was crying and that time, she saw
\n            Rakesh     lying ig    in     the        court-yard
\n            subsequently when police came to her house, she
\n                                                                         and       that<\/p>\n
            gave her statement.\n<\/p>\n
    19.           Considering           the        hostility        of      the        pancha<\/p>\n
    witnesses and specifically pancha witness Shivprasad (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    5), what is relevant for the purpose of present appeal is<\/p>\n
    the   appreciation        of    evidence         of   alleged        eye     witnesses<\/p>\n
    (P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and 11).               It is also to be mentioned that<\/p>\n
    P.W. 14 Vithal Mohakar had also seen three accused persons<\/p>\n
    running away from the spot.                     He has visited the spot on<\/p>\n
    receiving       intimation       as       to    commotion        taken       place        at<\/p>\n
    Joshipura area.         According to P.W. 14 Vithal,                       telephonic<\/p>\n
    information was received at about 01.35 pm and he made<\/p>\n
    station diary entry and went to the spot along with police<\/p>\n
    staff and saw the accused running away with weapons in<\/p>\n
    hand.    He also saw Jaywantibai (P.W. 1) on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    20.          This Court has to see whether the evidence of<\/p>\n
    said eye witnesses is properly appreciated by the learned<\/p>\n
    Additional        Sessions          Judge        while       convicting              the<\/p>\n
    appellants\/accused for the relevant offences.                              In doing<\/p>\n
    so, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant\/<\/p>\n
    accused are       dealt with in detail hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
    21.            1993 Cri.L. J. 3684 State of Andhra Pradesh v.\n<\/p>\n
    Punati Ramulu was relied upon to urge that exhibit 35 not<\/p>\n
    that   the<\/p>\n
    to be treated as First Information Report. It is argued<\/p>\n
                  Investigating          Officer       has      not      deliberately<\/p>\n
    recorded FIR even after receiving information about the<\/p>\n
    cognizable offence on the spot and as such, concoction and<\/p>\n
    deliberation cannot be ruled out. It is further argued<\/p>\n
    relying on this judgment that                the evidence of interested<\/p>\n
    witnesses    is     required    to    be    scrutinised          with      care      and<\/p>\n
    caution and in doing so, eye witnesses in the present<\/p>\n
    matter cannot be taken as trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
                 On this aspect, substantive evidence of P.W. 1<\/p>\n
    Jaywantibai    and    P.W.     14    Vithal      is   of     much       importance.\n<\/p>\n
    Needless to mention that cryptic information as to the<\/p>\n
    cognizable     offence       cannot         be     treated         as      a     first<\/p>\n
    information report in the strict sense.                        Moreover, there<\/p>\n
    can be a possibility that actual recording of the FIR is<\/p>\n
    postponed     for    some    time      though      on      the     spot        certain<\/p>\n
    revelation     is     made     by     the    first-informant              regarding<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    commission of cognizable offence.                     In the present case,<\/p>\n
    though it appears that on the spot, Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
    (P.W.   14)    enquired         with    P.W.   1    regarding          incident         and<\/p>\n
    apprised himself of the factual position, still he did not<\/p>\n
    record it down then and there.                      However, immediately on<\/p>\n
    reaching the Police Station, P.W. 1 Jaywantibai lodged her<\/p>\n
    complaint      and       it    was     recorded     as     exhibit          35.         The<\/p>\n
    immediate proximate              recording of such exhibit 35 ruled<\/p>\n
    out the possibility of concoction and the alleged time gap<\/p>\n
    of an hour or so could not be  ig                    treated as mitigating<\/p>\n
    circumstance to the case of prosecution so as to raise any<\/p>\n
    doubt of false implication of all the six accused, though<\/p>\n
    alleged by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    22.           On        the   second     argument        as      to      failure          to<\/p>\n
    independent witnesses raises doubt, it may be mentioned<\/p>\n
    that it is a question of appreciation of evidence of the<\/p>\n
    witnesses examined and always it may not be possible that<\/p>\n
    the person from the mob would come forward for giving<\/p>\n
    statement to the police.                Otherwise also, in order to take<\/p>\n
    advantage          of     circumstance         of     failure           to        examine<\/p>\n
    independent witnesses, reasonable opportunity must always<\/p>\n
    be    given   to        the   Investigating        Officer      as     to     why     such<\/p>\n
    witnesses were not questioned. It may not be lost sight of<\/p>\n
    the situation that presence of witnesses on the spot is<\/p>\n
    one thing and anybody coming forward to give statement to<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
    the    police   is   another      thing.       Whenever         a    circumstance<\/p>\n
    arises, as in the present case, as to brutal attack on the<\/p>\n
    deceased by six persons armed with different weapons is<\/p>\n
    witnessed by persons in the mob, all or any of them, may<\/p>\n
    not come forward for many reasons including reason of the<\/p>\n
    terror created by the assailants and the impact of the<\/p>\n
    situation.      Always in such type of cases, it can be seen<\/p>\n
    that    apart   from    close     relatives      of     the     victim,         nobody<\/p>\n
    comes forward to approach the police.                      If otherwise, the<\/p>\n
    repose     confidence,<\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of other witnesses who are examined<\/p>\n
                                    then        non-examination             of        other<\/p>\n
    independent witnesses cannot be treated as fatal to the<\/p>\n
    prosecution.         In our considered opinion, it is so in the<\/p>\n
    present matter.\n<\/p>\n
    23.         Next       argument     advanced          on      behalf         of      the<\/p>\n
    appellants      is     that     inter-se        contradictions               in      the<\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of alleged eye witnesses negate the<\/p>\n
    case of     prosecution and in that event, benefit of doubt<\/p>\n
    must go in favour of the accused.                On this aspect, we have<\/p>\n
    gone through the substantive evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and<\/p>\n
    11.    It must be said that P.W. 1 Jaywantibai had reached<\/p>\n
    the spot after getting the information from P.W. 2 Kavita.\n<\/p>\n
    So also, P.W. 11 Rekha, real sister of the deceased also<\/p>\n
    witnessed the incident and in fact, described the said<\/p>\n
    event by giving a vivid description.                        Her evidence was<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
    recorded with the help of the interpretor Madhurika (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    10).      Certain portion from her substantive evidence is<\/p>\n
    reproduced below :\n<\/p>\n
            1. Deceased was my brother. I know the accused
\n           persons sitting before the court.           Accused
\n           Girjashankar is my uncle.    The other accused are<\/p>\n
           not related to me. I cannot tell as to when the
\n           incident took place.    Incident took place during
\n           summer days and it was about 1.00 p.m.    Some six
\n           persons   were  running   behind   my  brother.   I
\n           personally saw this.    My brother entered in the<\/p>\n
           bathroom and tried to close the door from inside.
\n           However, accused Bindra knocked the door and<\/p>\n
           opened it and dragged him out of the bath room by
\n           pulling his hairs. The accused then assaulted him
\n           by pata.    The accused Gopal and accused Bindra
\n           assaulted him by means of pata. I requested the<\/p>\n
           accused Ghanshyam by folding hands not to beat my
\n           brother……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. The accused persons assaulted the deceased by
\n           two weapons. They have assaulted the deceased on<\/p>\n
           the stomach and lower portion of the stomach. Due
\n           to which the deceased fell on the ground.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Thereafter all the accused persons put Tilak of
\n           blood of the deceased on their forehead and they
\n           laughed in a victorious manner.     Thereafter the
\n           accused persons left that place.       The accused<\/p>\n
           persons present before the court are the same. I
\n           had   stated  these   facts  while   recording  my
\n           statement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    24.         Certain    contradictions     are      brought         on     record<\/p>\n
    during cross-examination of the said witness to the effect<\/p>\n
    that four persons were running behind her brother and when<\/p>\n
    she requested the accused not to beat her brother, they<\/p>\n
    left her aside and only one person dragged him out of the<\/p>\n
    bath-room.        Though said P.W. 11 Rekha mentioned as not<\/p>\n
    stating    this    fact   to   the    police    while       recording          her<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
    statement      during       investigation           and      could     not      give      any<\/p>\n
    reason why such portion appeared in her statement, still<\/p>\n
    the    oral    evidence        of    said        P.W.   11      is   convincing           and<\/p>\n
    rightly so held by learned Additional Sessions Judge and<\/p>\n
    the core of her evidence is to the effect as to witnessing<\/p>\n
    the assault and chase given by the accused to the deceased<\/p>\n
    on the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
    25.           On this aspect of inter-se contradictions in the<\/p>\n
    there   is     always<\/p>\n
    evidence of these eye witnesses, it must be mentioned that<\/p>\n
                               possibility           that     the    same      incident         is<\/p>\n
    described by different witnesses from the point                                  of their<\/p>\n
    perspective.         In other words, part of the incident may be<\/p>\n
    witnessed      by    a    witness     and        unless      specifically            asked,<\/p>\n
    witness may not depose as to the presence of other eye<\/p>\n
    witnesses.      In that view of the matter, arguments advanced<\/p>\n
    on    behalf    of    the      appellants          that    each      and      every       eye<\/p>\n
    witnesses had not stated regarding presence of other eye<\/p>\n
    witnesses on the spot, cannot hold good.                             On this aspect<\/p>\n
    of     contradictions           and     inconsistencies,                  shelter           of<\/p>\n
    following authority was cited on behalf of the State for<\/p>\n
    canvassing the proposition that minor inconsistencies and<\/p>\n
    contradictions           are   not    material          when    substantially             the<\/p>\n
    case of prosecution is proved by overwhelming testimony of<\/p>\n
    eye witnesses.           The said authority is :\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
                      (2009) 10 SCC 636
\n                      Gamini Bala and ors v. State of A.P.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      This judgment is relied by the State to canvass<\/p>\n
    another       proposition             that    medical      evidence,            when      not<\/p>\n
    strictly contradicting the ocular evidence,                               reliance can<\/p>\n
    be placed on the ocular evidence.\n<\/p>\n
    26.               Next    argument           advanced      on        behalf       of      the<\/p>\n
    appellants\/accused which is in fact emphasised much, is<\/p>\n
    that    the        eye<\/p>\n
                              witnesses          are    falsified        by    the     medical<\/p>\n
    evidence on record.              In order to appreciate this argument,<\/p>\n
    certain      factual       position          as to    contents of           post-mortem<\/p>\n
    report       as    to    the    injuries       on    the   deceased         and      ocular<\/p>\n
    evidence          of     the    eye     witnesses,         is     required          to      be<\/p>\n
    summarised.\n<\/p>\n
    27.               From the cross-examination of eye witnesses, it<\/p>\n
    is an accepted position that there was an assault on the<\/p>\n
    deceased          by    means    of    heavy       stone   i.e.       grinding         stone<\/p>\n
    weighing from             5-7 kg upto even 22 kg.                      These are the<\/p>\n
    articles at 5,6 and 7 and apparently having human blood on<\/p>\n
    them    and       they    were    seized       from     the     scene      of    offence.\n<\/p>\n
    However,          significantly         enough       the      blood       grouping        was<\/p>\n
    inconclusive.            Though result of the chemical analysis as<\/p>\n
    to     the    inclusive          blood        grouping          is     favouring          the<\/p>\n
    appellants, still finding of human blood on these stones<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
    and    use     of    such    stones     by    accused     for     assaulting           the<\/p>\n
    deceased on his head, is a relevant aspect and which is<\/p>\n
    required to be taken into consideration while considering<\/p>\n
    the    case         of    prosecution        whether     it      has       reasonably<\/p>\n
    explained the involvement of the accused\/appellants beyond<\/p>\n
    reasonable doubt. During cross-examination, eye witnesses<\/p>\n
    have accepted that the deceased was assaulted on his head<\/p>\n
    on many occasions by these grinding stones and every time<\/p>\n
    it    hit    the     target. It       is also     brought on            record that<\/p>\n
    during      such     assault,ig   deceased      was<\/p>\n
    either his face towards the sky or towards the ground.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            lying      on    the      ground\n\n                                                                                             By\n                               \n<\/pre>\n
    pointing out these admissions, it is strongly submitted on<\/p>\n
    behalf of the appellants that the natural consequence of<\/p>\n
    such    assault          would   lead   to    almost     crushing          the     skull<\/p>\n
    portion and also lacerated wounds on the face.\n<\/p>\n
    28.            It is seen that there were severe injuries on<\/p>\n
    the skull and whether there were any fractures.                                   Again,<\/p>\n
    it    cannot        be   expected     that    such     assault        shall       always<\/p>\n
    result in totally crushing injury of the head.                                In order<\/p>\n
    to appreciate the above-referred arguments, the injuries<\/p>\n
    narrated in the post-mortem report are worth mentioning<\/p>\n
    which are as under :\n<\/p>\n
             17.       Surface wounds and injuries, their nature,<\/p>\n
           position, dimensions (measured) and directions to<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
     be   accurately         stated,       their       probable        age     and<\/p>\n
     causes to be noted. If bruises be present what is<\/p>\n
     the condition of the subcutaneous tissues ? (N.B.\n<\/p>\n
     When     injuries           are    numerous        and       cannot         be<\/p>\n
     mentioned within the space available they should<\/p>\n
     be mentioned on a separate paper which should be<\/p>\n
     signed) :\n<\/p>\n
     1)       Lacerated          wound,        Right   Parieto         temporal<\/p>\n
     region, oblique 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     2)<\/p>\n
            Contusion, left forehead 8 cm x 6 cm fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     3)     Stab       wound,      Left        eyebrow,      lateral         1\/3rd
\n     oblique,      1    cm   x    0.5     cm     x   bone    deep,      Margins
\n     clean, angles, sharp Margins clean, angles, sharp
\n     directed medially & posteriorly, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     4)     Contusion, Left mazillary area, 5 cm x 4 cm,
\n     fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     5)     Stab wound, Right Anterox axillary fold, 1
\n     cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep margins clean, angler
\n     sharp directed posteriorly, upwards & medially,
\n     fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     6)     Stab   wound, below the left medial end of
\n     clavicle by 2.5 cm, 1 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep,
\n     directed          posterosly         downward          and      medially,
\n     margins clean, angle sharp, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     7)     Stab       wound,     right        Hypochordrium,           in     the
\n     midaxillary line, 1 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep,<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                     19<\/span><\/p>\n
     directed   downwards     and    medially     margins       clean,
\n     angle sharp, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     8)    Stab wound, below the          Inj (7) by cm in the<\/p>\n
     midaxillary line 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep
\n     directed medially & posteriorly, margines clean,
\n     angle sharp fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     9)    Stab wound below the inj. no. 8 by 1.5 cm in
\n     the midexillary line 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep
\n     directed   forward   and   medially,       margins,        clean,<\/p>\n
     angle sharp, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     10.<\/p>\n
           Stab wound, right arm, antero medial aspect
\n     upper 1\/3rd oblique, 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep<\/p>\n
     directed   posteriorly         and   laterally,         margines
\n     clean, angle sharp, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     11)   Incised wound, right forearm, flexor aspect<\/p>\n
     Lower 1\/3rd radial side, oblique, 2 cm x 0.5 cm x
\n     Tendors deep, margines clearn, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     12)   Incised   wound,     right     wrist     &    Hypothenar
\n     muscle region, anteriorly, vertical, 2.5 cm x 0.5
\n     cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margins clear, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     13)   Incised   wound,     right      wrist,       posteriorly
\n     unlar border, oblique, 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x Tender
\n     deep, margins clean, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     14)   Contused abrasion, left arm, antero medial
\n     aspect, upper 1\/3rd 6 cm x 0.5 cm, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     15)   Contused abrasion, left arm, postero-lateral<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             20<\/span><\/p>\n
     aspect, middle 1\/3rd, 3 cm x 2 cm, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     16)   Incised wound left forearm, lateral aspect,
\n     lower     1p 3rd, ulhar border, oblique, 2 cm x 0.5<\/p>\n
     cm x muscle deep, margins clear, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     17)   Multiple         contused         abrasion,         left       forearm<\/p>\n
     lateral and posterior aspect size varies from 0.5
\n     cm x muscle deep, margins clear, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     18.   Incised         would      left       hand     enterior        aspect,<\/p>\n
     index & middle finger, proximal 1\/3rd, 1 cm x 0.5
\n     cm
\n     fresh.\n<\/p>\n
           x   muscle  ig   deep      horizontal,           margins         clear,<\/p>\n
     19)   Stab wound, right, back of 10.7 cm from the
\n     midline,       size    2    cm     x    0.5     cm    x    muscle        deep,
\n     directed       forward      and        anteriorly         and     laterally<\/p>\n
     margins    clear,          angle       sharp,      fresh      tailing         at<\/p>\n
     lower angle directed medially of size 4 cm x 0.5
\n     cm fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     20)   Contused abrasion, right trunk, posteriorly
\n     above the posterior superior Ihac spine by 2 cm
\n     size 1 cm x 1 cm, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     21)   Incised wound, left trunk posteriorly at the
\n     level     of     L-1,       in     posterior          axillary           line,
\n     oblique, 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep margins
\n     clean, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
     22)   Multiple         abrasion,            left     thigh,         anterior
\n     aspect, middle 1\/3rd size varies from 0.5 cm x 0.5
\n     cm to 1 cm x 1 cm, fresh.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                               21<\/span><\/p>\n
           23)     Contused abrasion, left leg, medial aspect
\n           upper 1\/3rd, 1.5 cm x 1 cm fresh.\n<\/p>\n
           24)     Multiple        contused     lacerated      wound,         5    in<\/p>\n
           numbers, left leg posterior, middle 1\/3rd of size
\n           1 cm x 0.5 cm, each fresh.\n<\/p>\n
    29.            Noticing the above described injuries which are<\/p>\n
    reportedly ante-mortem as per P.W. 12 Dr Rajesh                          Bardale,<\/p>\n
    it     can   hardly       be    accepted       that    the     eye       witnesses<\/p>\n
    testimony is falsified by the medical evidence.                               This is<\/p>\n
    more so while considering the injuries to the head.                                    On<\/p>\n
    this     aspect      of    medical        evidence    falsifying              the    eye<\/p>\n
    witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    30.            Authorities        are      cited      on     behalf           of     the<\/p>\n
    appellants as to appreciation of evidence are :\n<\/p>\n
                   (1)   1994 Cri.L.J. 3848
\n                         Mani Ram v. State of U.P.<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (2)   AIR 1987 SC 826
\n                         Amar Singh v. State of Punjab<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    31.            We have seen that in Mani Ram v. State of UP<\/p>\n
    (supra), there was a solitary eye witness and his evidence<\/p>\n
    was    found    to   be    totally      inconsistent         with     the      medical<\/p>\n
    evidence on record in that matter.                    Similar was the case<\/p>\n
    in Amar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra).                                Therefore,<\/p>\n
    considering the specific facts of the present matter as to<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n
    almost five eye witnesses speaking about involvement of<\/p>\n
    the     appellants\/accused             and     their           testimony             not<\/p>\n
    contradictory      to     the    medical     evidence         on     record,         the<\/p>\n
    argument on this count also cannot be accepted in support<\/p>\n
    of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    32.         Again, on this aspect of medical evidence and<\/p>\n
    ocular evidence, whether contradictory or corroborative,<\/p>\n
    following authorities are cited before us on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    State :\n<\/p>\n
                (1)    AIR 2008 SC 515\n                       Mahmood & anr v. State of U.P.\n\n\n                (2)    (2008) 4 SCC 434\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                       Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar<\/a><\/p>\n
                (3)    (2008) SCC 587
\n                       Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n
                By    pointing       out   the   ratio       propounded           by     the<\/p>\n
    above   authorities, it          is strongly      submitted by                learned<\/p>\n
    Additional       Public        Prosecutor      that       the       presence           of<\/p>\n
    witnesses    cannot       be    disbelieved     only       on      the     basis       of<\/p>\n
    medical   evidence        even    if   there    is       some      inconsistency<\/p>\n
    between the two.           It is further argued that the ocular<\/p>\n
    evidence in the present case is fully corroborated by the<\/p>\n
    medical evidence on material particulars and there are no<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                               23<\/span><\/p>\n
    inconsistencies going to the root of the matter. Relying<\/p>\n
    on these rulings, it is argued on behalf of the State that<\/p>\n
    specific   overtact        of    a   particular         accused       need      not      be<\/p>\n
    established       when     forming        of    the    unlawful        assembly          is<\/p>\n
    already established by the evidence of the eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    It is further brought to our notice that the involvement<\/p>\n
    of all the appellants is spelt out by the eye witnesses<\/p>\n
    and as such, by applying the rigor of Section 149 of the<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code, all the appellants are rightly held<\/p>\n
    guilty for the murder of deceased Rakesh.\n<\/p>\n
    33.            Now, coming to the last argument on behalf of<\/p>\n
    the appellants as to the alibi, so far as accused nos. 2<\/p>\n
    and 4 are concerned, an attempt has been made to establish<\/p>\n
    that the said accused were at some other place and not at<\/p>\n
    the    place    of   incident        at   the    relevant        time.          Defence<\/p>\n
    witnesses Sudhir Shrikhedkar (D.W. 1) and Dr Indrapalsingh<\/p>\n
    (D.W. 2) were examined to prove alibi of accused no. 4<\/p>\n
    Gopal whereas D.W. 3 Raju Shende is examined to prove<\/p>\n
    alibi of accused no. 2 Ghanshyam.                     It is brought on record<\/p>\n
    that    accused      no.   4    Gopal     was    serving       in     the     National<\/p>\n
    Research Centre for Citrus, Amravati Road, Nagpur and at<\/p>\n
    the relevant time, he was in his office. D.W. 1 Sudhir,<\/p>\n
    working as Technical Assistant, was colleague of accused<\/p>\n
    Gopal whereas D.W. 2 Dr Indrapalsingh was holding the post<\/p>\n
    of     Senior Scientist in whose office accused no. 4 Gopal<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                24<\/span><\/p>\n
    was working.          According to these witnesses, a roll-call<\/p>\n
    was    maintained      twice     a     day,     firstly       at    08.00       am     and<\/p>\n
    secondly at 01.00 pm and on the day of incident, accused<\/p>\n
    Gopal attended the office for his duty in a shift from<\/p>\n
    09.30 am to 05.00 pm and according to them, said Gopal was<\/p>\n
    present when roll call was taken at 01.00 pm.                            However, he<\/p>\n
    had    received       telephonic       message         that       his    mother        was<\/p>\n
    serious and he obtained permission from D.W. 2 for going<\/p>\n
    to    his    house.     It    is significant            to note         that though<\/p>\n
    immediately      he<\/p>\n
    allegedly at 01.00 p.m., accused Gopal answered roll-call,<\/p>\n
                           left      the       office      on     receiving         alleged<\/p>\n
    telephone call.           It is an admitted position brought on<\/p>\n
    record that office of accused no. 4 is at a distance of 8<\/p>\n
    kms from Nagpur city.            It is also brought on record that<\/p>\n
    the Office of National Research Centre for Citrus is such<\/p>\n
    an    establishment      having        more     than    250       acres      of    land,<\/p>\n
    having office building, laboratory, farm and nursery and<\/p>\n
    there was nothing on record through defence witnesses that<\/p>\n
    all    the    time,    accused       no.    4   Gopal       was    in    the      office<\/p>\n
    premises itself.         On this aspect, the reasoning given by<\/p>\n
    learned Additional Sessions Judge is perused by us.                                      In<\/p>\n
    our opinion, learned Additional Sessions Judge had doubted<\/p>\n
    the authenticity of the register produced on record for<\/p>\n
    want of official seal on the relevant page showing the<\/p>\n
    entry as to the attendance of accused no. 4 at 01.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
    Moreover, it must be mentioned that on that afternoon,<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             25<\/span><\/p>\n
    accused no. 4 was permitted to leave and he was not there<\/p>\n
    till   the    end      of      office   hours.      Definitely,          it     is     a<\/p>\n
    mitigating    circumstance to            the defence        when a          specific<\/p>\n
    plea of alibi is raised. It is an accepted position that<\/p>\n
    when a plea of alibi is raised on behalf of the accused,<\/p>\n
    burden of proof of such alibi is more than that is usually<\/p>\n
    on the accused for establishing any particular fact on<\/p>\n
    preponderance of probability.\n<\/p>\n
    34.          On     the   \n                                appreciation      of     evidence\n\n<\/pre>\n
    following authority is cited on behalf of the appellants :\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           of      alibi,\n                             \n                 AIR 1985 SC 911\n                 Dudhnath Pandey v. State of U.P.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 Section 11 of the Evidence Act postulates the<\/p>\n
    concept of alibi and in fact, puts more burden on the<\/p>\n
    accused if such a case is put up to negate the case of<\/p>\n
    prosecution.      Again,        on    this   plea    of    alibi        raised        by<\/p>\n
    accused   no.     4,      it    is    relevant     that    such       defence         is<\/p>\n
    belatedly taken and not when accused no. 4 was put under<\/p>\n
    arrest by the police.                Learned Additional Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
    had doubted the conduct of accused no. 4 not immediately<\/p>\n
    representing to the police or to the Magistrate after his<\/p>\n
    arrest as to his presence in his office and not on the<\/p>\n
    scene of offence.              Even subsequently also, there were no<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                              26<\/span><\/p>\n
    steps    taken       by    accused     no.     4    through         his      office        to<\/p>\n
    establish his alibi.\n<\/p>\n
    35.            So far as plea of alibi taken by accused no.2<\/p>\n
    Ghanshyam      is    concerned,       substantive evidence                  of D.W.          3<\/p>\n
    Raju is taken shelter of.               According to him, on the day of<\/p>\n
    incident, accused no. 2 came to his house at 10.30 a.m.<\/p>\n
    for     Abhishek Pooja           of Lord Shiva and both of them went<\/p>\n
    to purchase Pooja articles and subsequently at 12.00 noon<\/p>\n
    Pooja was started which continued till 03.00 p.m. This<\/p>\n
    evidence of D.W. 3 Raju is also not accepted by learned<\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge for the reason that there was<\/p>\n
    nothing    on       record      to   suggest       that     accused        no.      2    was<\/p>\n
    continuously present all along with D.W. 3 Raju till 05.00<\/p>\n
    p.m.\n<\/p>\n
    36.            In our considered opinion, the reasoning given<\/p>\n
    by    learned    Additional          Sessions Judge           not accepting              the<\/p>\n
    plea of accused nos. 2 and 4 cannot be doubted and hence,<\/p>\n
    on this count also, the arguments advanced on behalf of<\/p>\n
    the appellants\/accused cannot sustain.\n<\/p>\n
    37.            In view of the above discussion on the points<\/p>\n
    raised    by    both      the    parties,      nothing        is    emerging         which<\/p>\n
    would     warrant         interference        in    the     impugned          order        by<\/p>\n
    setting aside the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                 27<\/span><\/p>\n
    38.      Hence, there are no merits in the appeal and the<\/p>\n
    same is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             JUDGE                        JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    joshi\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                     \n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:35:17 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2005 Appellants : 1) Deepak @ Oharilal Joshi, aged about 20 years 2) […]<\/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-123713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIn The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 28 October, 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\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-10T18:07:24+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-10T18:07:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5056,\"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\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-10T18:07:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 28 October, 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\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-10T18:07:24+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-10T18:07:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":5056,"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\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010","name":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-10T18:07:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-unknown-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Unknown on 28 October, 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:\/\/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\/123713","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=123713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}