{"id":127669,"date":"2010-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-18T00:11:29","modified_gmt":"2015-12-17T18:41:29","slug":"badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
                                               1            apeal320 and 399.90.sxw\n\n\n                IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 320 OF 1990 \n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh,\n    Age 18 years, Occupation Tailoring,\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    Residing at present in\n    Central Jail, Yeravda,\n    Pune.                                      ....Appellant\/Accused.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n          Vs.\n\n    State of Maharashtra\n                          \n    (Wanawadi Police Station, Pune)            ....Respondent\/\n                                                   Complainant.\n                         \n                                        WITH\n\n                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 399 OF 1990 \n          \n\n\n    The State of Maharashtra                   ....Appellant.\n       \n\n\n\n          Vs.\n\n    1     Yusuf Ismail Shaikh,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Age 44 years, \n          Occupation Tailoring work\n\n    2     Apsarbegum Yusuf Shaikh,\n          Age 35 years, \n\n\n\n\n\n          Occupation- Tailoring work,\n\n\n    All residing at Mahatma Phule\n    Zopadpatti, Survey No. 111\/316,\n    Near Railway Bridge,\n    Pune.                                      ....Respondents.\n                                                   (Orig. Accused Nos. 2 and 3)\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:22:58 :::\n                                                        2              apeal320 and 399.90.sxw\n\n\n\n    Mr. Abdul Kadar Millwala for the Appellant in Appeal No. 320 of 1990.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n    Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State - Appellant in Appeal No. 399 of 1990 \n    and for Respondent State in Appeal No. 320 of 1990.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Mr. Arfan Sait for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Appeal No. 399 of 1990. \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                                 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &\n                                           ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                          JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 29\/07\/2010<\/p>\n
                          JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :- 31\/08\/2010<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT :- (PER – B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)<\/p>\n
    1      These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 28\/03\/1990 <\/p>\n
    rendered by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions <\/p>\n
    Case No. 338 of 1987.  In all 3 accused came to be tried in the said case for <\/p>\n
    the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 202 read with Section <\/p>\n
    34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).\n<\/p>\n
    2      By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   learned   Additional <\/p>\n
    Sessions Judge, Pune acquitted accused nos.2 and 3 from all the charges <\/p>\n
    and   therefore,   Criminal   Appeal   No.   399   of   1990   by   the   State   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra against the said order of acquittal. Accused no.1 came to be <\/p>\n
    convicted   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   of   the   IPC   and <\/p>\n
    sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.  Hence, he has filed Criminal Appeal <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                         3             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    No. 320 of 1990 against the said order of conviction and sentence.  He was <\/p>\n
    released on bail by this Court on 18\/06\/1990, pending his appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    3      As per the prosecution case accused no.2 Yusuf Ismail Shaikh was a <\/p>\n
    tailor by profession  and the  husband of accused no.3 Apsarbegum Yusuf <\/p>\n
    Shaikh and accused no.1 Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh, is the son of accused nos.\n<\/p>\n
    2   and   3.       Accused   no.   2   had   physical   relationship   with   the   deceased <\/p>\n
    Nagavva @ Bismilla and subsequently he married her about one year prior <\/p>\n
    to the date of incident.   However, accused nos. 1 and 3 were staying in a <\/p>\n
    house at Wanwadi whereas, accused no.2 started living with the deceased <\/p>\n
    in a room provided by one Gurkha in Vaiduwadi area of Pune city.  He co-\n<\/p>\n
    habited with the deceased for about one year and on 07\/04\/1987, when he <\/p>\n
    returned home in Vaiduwadi at about 5.30, he noticed that Nagavva was <\/p>\n
    lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries and she was dead. He did not <\/p>\n
    approach   the   Police   Station   to   lodge   a   complaint.   Instead,   one   of   the <\/p>\n
    neighbourer  P.W. 9, gave a telephonic message to the nearby Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
    Subsequently at about 7.30 p.m. while accused nos.2 and 3 were preparing <\/p>\n
    for the last rites of the deceased, the Police Constable P.W. 11 arrived at the <\/p>\n
    scene. He opened the door of the house of accused no.2 and noticed that a <\/p>\n
    dead body with bleeding injuries was lying on the cot and the floor area <\/p>\n
    was washed.  Accused no.3 was with accused no.2 at the relevant time but <\/p>\n
    accused   no.1   was   not   there.     The   police   took   accused   nos.2   and   3   in <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        4              apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    custody, drew the spot panchanama and dead body of Nagavva was sent for <\/p>\n
    postmortem.  Accused no.1 was taken in custody on 08\/4\/1987.  Under the <\/p>\n
    panchanama at Exhibit 21, his shoes were seized.  While under arrest, his <\/p>\n
    statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and based on <\/p>\n
    this, his clothes, kept in pit, were recovered. The clothes of accused no. 2 <\/p>\n
    and other belongings on his person were also seized under the panchanama <\/p>\n
    at  Exhibit  21.  Blood  samples,  as  well  as  clothes  were  sent  for   Chemical <\/p>\n
    Analysis and on completion of the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge-\n<\/p>\n
    sheet along with P.M. report at Exhibit 1.  The case being exclusively triable <\/p>\n
    by Sessions Court, it was committed and the charge came to be framed on <\/p>\n
    21\/01\/1988.\n<\/p>\n
    4      The prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses.  P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 were <\/p>\n
    the panch witnesses, P. W. 5 to P. W. 9 and P. W. 14 were the neighbourers, <\/p>\n
    whereas, P.W. 10 Vijay Tote, was the Photographer and P. W. 11 to P. W. 13 <\/p>\n
    and   P.   W.   15   were   the   police   personnel.   P.W.   16   Dr.   Mahadik   Vitthal <\/p>\n
    Chintalwar, was  the  Medical Officer from the Sassoon Hospital who had <\/p>\n
    conducted   the   postmortem   on   08\/04\/1987   at   9.30   a.m.   and   sent   the <\/p>\n
    postmortem report at Exhibit 65.\n<\/p>\n
    5      In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune <\/p>\n
    held that the Nagavva died a homicidal death on 07\/04\/1987, however, the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                         5             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    prosecution could not prove that accused nos. 2 and 3, infurtherance of <\/p>\n
    their   common   intention,   alongwith   accused   no.1,   were   guilty   of   causing <\/p>\n
    homicidal death of Nagavva.  He also held that the charges for the offences <\/p>\n
    punishable  under  Sections  201  and 202 of  IPC could  not  be  established <\/p>\n
    against all the accused.  However, the trial Court held that it was accused <\/p>\n
    no.1, who had committed the murder of Nagavva on 07\/04\/1987 in her <\/p>\n
    house between 2.30 to 4.30 p.m. <\/p>\n
    6<\/span><\/p>\n
           P.W.   16   Dr.   Chintalwar   was   the   Lecturer   in   the   Forensic   Medicine <\/p>\n
    Department with the Sassoon Hospital, Pune and he stated before the trial <\/p>\n
    court   that   on   08\/04\/1987,   at   4.00   a.m.   he   received   the   dead   body   for <\/p>\n
    postmortem   and   it   was   forwarded   by   the   Wanawadi   Police   Station.   He <\/p>\n
    commenced the postmortem at 9.30 a.m. and completed it at 11.00 a.m.. It <\/p>\n
    was the dead body of a female, aged 30 years and the clothes around the <\/p>\n
    body were stained with blood. On external examination, he found following <\/p>\n
    injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
           “i)     Incised wound-left frontal starting from middle of the left  <\/p>\n
                   eye-brow   and   going   upwards   obliquely   –  3″   x  1”   bone
\n                   deep-clean cut fracture of the frontal bone in the base.<\/p>\n
           ii)     Incised wound left parietal region – 5″ above left ear 2\u00bd”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   x 1\u00bd” bond deep clean cut fracture in the base.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           iii)    Incised wound right occipital region – behind right ear –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   horizontal 4″ x 1″ bone deep, clean cut fracture in the
\n                   base.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                    6              apeal320 and 399.90.sxw\n\n\n     iv)    Incised wound 2\" x 1\" bone deep - 1\" above the right ear  \n            clean cut fracture in the base. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     v)     Incised   wound   right   parietal     region   near   midline   7\"  \n<\/pre>\n
            above right ear 5″ x 1″ bone deep fracture – clean cut in  <\/p>\n
            the base.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     vi)    Incised wound – behind left ear longitudinal 3″ x 1″ bone
\n            deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     vii)   Incised wound left occipital region – 2″ x 1\u00bd” bone deep\n<\/p>\n
            – clean cut fracture in the base.\n<\/p>\n
     viii) Incised   wound   middle   of   the   scapular   over   the   nape   –\n<\/p>\n
           midline – 4″ x 1″ under lying spinal column Halved into  <\/p>\n
           two portions.\n<\/p>\n
     ix)    Incised wound right scapula middle 1\/3 x 1\u00bd x 1\u00bd” bone  <\/p>\n
            deep.\n<\/p>\n
     x)     Incised wound dorsum of the left hand oblique 4″ x 1″\n<\/p>\n
            bone   deep   with   clean   cut   fracture   of   the   carpel   bones  <\/p>\n
            underlying.\n<\/p>\n
     xi)    Incised would left wrist – oblique – extending over the left
\n            thumb 4″ x 2″ bone deep with clean cut fracture of the
\n            underlying bones.\n<\/p>\n
     xii)   Incised wound left forearm lower 1\/3 anterior aspect 2″ x
\n            1\u00bd” bone deep with fracture.\n<\/p>\n
     xiii) Abrasion below left angle of the maddible – 1″ x \u00bd”.\n<\/p>\n
     xiv)   Incised wound – middle finger – terminal and middle.\n<\/p>\n
     xv)    Amputation terminal of left index finger – Old.\n<\/p>\n
     xvi)   Contused abrasion right upper arm lower 1\/3 – two in
\n            numbers approximately 2″ x 1″ reddish side by side.\n<\/p>\n
     xvii) Abrasion right in inguinal region – 2″ x 1″ reddish.\n<\/p>\n
     xviii) Abrasion below left knee – 1″ x 1″ reddish.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                            7              apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
           He further stated that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and <\/p>\n
    were recent, except injury No. 15, which was an old injury.  As per him,  all <\/p>\n
    these injuries, except 15, were caused shortly before the death.\n<\/p>\n
           The internal injuries were noticed by him were,<\/p>\n
            “Head:-\n<\/p>\n
            Clean cut fracture of the vault of the base of injuries Nos. 1 to 7<\/p>\n
            described in column No.17.\n<\/p>\n
            Skull:-\n<\/p>\n
            With haematoma all over the vault.\n<\/p>\n
            Brain:-\n<\/p>\n
            Extensive subdural haemorrhage all over the brain.\n<\/p>\n
           Spinal column Halved into two by sharp cutting fracture with<\/p>\n
           cutting of the cord underlying – corresponds to injury No. VIII
\n           th of the column No. 17, Vertebrae involved are C-7, T1, T2,
\n           T3.\n<\/p>\n
           Internal injuries were also antimortem.”\n<\/p>\n
    7      He clarified that injury Nos. 1 to 14 and 16 to 18, were possible by a <\/p>\n
    heavy cutting weapon with a sharp edge and when he was shown article <\/p>\n
    No.   28,   Koyta,   he   stated   that   the   said   injuries   could   be   caused   by   that <\/p>\n
    weapon.  As per him, the cause of death was “shock due to homicidal injury”\n<\/p>\n
    and he prepared the postmortem, Exhibit 65, in his own handwriting and <\/p>\n
    signed it.  He further clarified that injury Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 were sufficient <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       8             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, whereas, injury No.8 on its <\/p>\n
    own was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.   As per the doctor, <\/p>\n
    injury Nos. 10 to 12 and 14 could be caused because of the defence by the <\/p>\n
    deceased who opposed the attack.  The doctor further opined that the death <\/p>\n
    could   have   occurred   within   12   to   24   hours   before   the   postmortem <\/p>\n
    examination which means that Nagavva was done to death between 9.30 <\/p>\n
    a.m. to 9.30 p.m. on 07\/04\/1987.  By accepting the evidence of P. W. 16 the <\/p>\n
    trial court rightly recorded the finding that Nagavva met with a homicidal <\/p>\n
    death and therefore, we are required to consider whether accused no.1 had <\/p>\n
    caused the death of Nagavva. We are also required to consider whether any <\/p>\n
    of accused nos. 2 and 3 or both of them had caused Nagavva’s death in <\/p>\n
    view of Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990, filed by the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
    8      We need to record some admitted facts before we proceed to rift the <\/p>\n
    evidence of witnesses and more particularly the neighbours. accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    was residing with Nagavva whereas, accused nos.1 and 3 were residing in a <\/p>\n
    separate home at Wanwadi.   C.A. reports though received, have not been <\/p>\n
    exhibited and relied upon by the trial court, and even otherwise they are of <\/p>\n
    no   consequence   because   the   blood   group   of   the   deceased,   as   well   as <\/p>\n
    accused no.1 is the same.   The room in which Nagavva was residing with <\/p>\n
    accused no.2 after her marriage with him and where her dead body was <\/p>\n
    found, did not have a window and it had one door with the front side and <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    another door with the rear side.  It is nobody’s case that the rear side door <\/p>\n
    was open and accused No.1 had entered through the same.  As per accused <\/p>\n
    no.2, he had lunch at home with Nagavva at about 2.00 p.m. and thereafter, <\/p>\n
    he left for his tailoring shop which is located in the same chawl.  When he <\/p>\n
    returned home at about 5.30 p.m., he saw his wife Nagavva, in a pool of <\/p>\n
    blood and there was no other person present in the house.\n<\/p>\n
    9     P.W. 5, Smt. Sika Das, P.W. 7 Suresh Gaikwad, P.W. 8 Smt. Laileeta <\/p>\n
    Chandale, P.W. 9 Shri Dilip Gaikwad, P.W. 14, Smt. Shobhabai More are the <\/p>\n
    neighbours whereas, P.W. 1 Yashwant Khilare, P.W. 2 Dattu Dalgude, P.W. 3 <\/p>\n
    Anantrao Tupe and P.W. 4 Dasharath Ohal were the punch witnesses.  P.W. 6 <\/p>\n
    Yasinkhan Pathan was the Vice President of Anjuman Hidaytul Islam School <\/p>\n
    and the residents of neighbouring area of Ramtekadi used to go to him in <\/p>\n
    case of death of any person, so as to perform the last rites (funeral).  P.W. 10 <\/p>\n
    Vijay Tote was the Government photographer.  P.W. 11, Vishnu Sutar, Police <\/p>\n
    Hawaldar, P.W. 12 Yashwantsingh Rajput was PSI from Pune Railway Station <\/p>\n
    Police Station.  P.W. 13, Dattatraya Nikam was a police constable attached to <\/p>\n
    wanawadi   Police   Station   and   P.W.   15,   Prabhakar   Shukla   was   the <\/p>\n
    Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
    10    P.W. 5, Sika Das, stated before the trial court that she was resident of <\/p>\n
    Ramtekadi for the last 6 years and she knew accused no.2 as he used to <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                         10             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    stitch her clothes and he had also made available house accommodation for <\/p>\n
    her and she was on visiting terms with him.  On 07\/04\/1987, accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    had gone to her house in the afternoon to hand over the stitched clothes <\/p>\n
    and left her house around 4.30 p.m. but returned at about 7.00 p.m. in a <\/p>\n
    disturbed condition and he was weeping.   On inquiry by her, he told her <\/p>\n
    that   he   needed   Rs.500\/-.   She   did   not   have   money   and   therefore   took <\/p>\n
    accused no.2 to Smt. Manju Nepali.  She gave him Rs. 500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
           In her cross-examination, she admitted that accused no.2 had stayed <\/p>\n
    in her house for 2 hours and demanded stitching charges and he pleaded <\/p>\n
    for Rs.400 to 500.  He had come back in the evening and she had borrowed <\/p>\n
    the money from Smt. Manju Nepali and given to accused no.2.   She also <\/p>\n
    admitted that accused no.2 had no talk to Manju Nepali on that day.  This <\/p>\n
    witness   was   declared   hostile   and   some   contradictions   in   her   earlier <\/p>\n
    statement recorded by the police, were brought on record.   She admitted <\/p>\n
    that in her statement recorded by the police she did not state regarding the <\/p>\n
    demand of Rs.500\/- by accused no.2 and that he had visited her house with <\/p>\n
    clothes   on   07\/04\/1987.     She   admitted   that   she   had   gone   along   with <\/p>\n
    accused no.2 to Smt. Manju Nepali’s house.\n<\/p>\n
    11     P.W. 7 Suresh Gaikwad was also a resident of Ramtekadi and he knew <\/p>\n
    accused   nos.   1   to   3.     As   per   him,   Nagavva   came   from   her   village   on <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        11             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    04\/04\/1987 and her house was about 200 ft. away from his house.  On the <\/p>\n
    date of the incident, he was sitting in front of his house door between 11.30 <\/p>\n
    to 11.45 p.m. when accused no.3 reached his house and called him.   On <\/p>\n
    inquiry   with   her,   she   told   him   that   her   husband   had   called   him.   He, <\/p>\n
    therefore, came to the house of accused no.2 where he met his sister Pyaribi <\/p>\n
    and another person Mulla, as well as, younger brother of accused no.2.  He <\/p>\n
    inquired with accused no.2 as to why he was called and all of them were <\/p>\n
    sitting in front of the door of the room.   Accused no.2 informed him that <\/p>\n
    accused nos.1 and 3 had gone to Janwadi and he had meals with Nagavva <\/p>\n
    and went away for giving clothes to the customers but when he returned <\/p>\n
    back at 5.30 p.m. he saw Nagavva lying in a pool of blood.   On further <\/p>\n
    inquiry, accused No.2 told him that Nagavva died because of stomachache <\/p>\n
    and he further told that the dead body was to be buried in the night. The <\/p>\n
    witness, therefore, took accused no.2 to the house of P.W. 6, who informed <\/p>\n
    that the dead body could not be buried in the night and it would be better <\/p>\n
    to call the relatives in the morning.  Both of them came back to the place of <\/p>\n
    incident.  Accused no. 3 gave him a cup of tea and while he was sitting in <\/p>\n
    front of the room, he noticed one Hawaldar coming from the opposite side.\n<\/p>\n
    The Hawaldar inquired with him as to where the murder took place and he <\/p>\n
    told Hawaldar that he was not aware. He further informed that as per his <\/p>\n
    knowledge, accused no.2’s wife was lying dead. The Hawaldar, thereafter, <\/p>\n
    inquired with him about Yusuf Shaikh and he pointed towards accused no.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                          12              apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    2.   The   hawaldar   took   both   of   them   inside   the   room   and   removed   the <\/p>\n
    clothes rapped around the dead body.   At that time the witness saw the <\/p>\n
    injury around the neck of the deceased and the house was cleaned though <\/p>\n
    there were some blood stains.\n<\/p>\n
           In   the   cross-examination,   he   admitted   that   the   hawaldar   asked <\/p>\n
    accused no.2 as to where his wife was. He also admitted that when the <\/p>\n
    statement was recorded by the police he did not state that he had seen the <\/p>\n
    neck injury on the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he was a got up <\/p>\n
    witness and that he was talking lies.\n<\/p>\n
    12     P.   W.   8,   Smt.   Laleeta   Chandale,   stated   that   she   was   a   resident   of <\/p>\n
    Mahatma Phule Zopadpatti for the last 1\u00bd years and her husband was in <\/p>\n
    service  with the  race course  at  Mumbai.   Accused nos. 1 to  3 were  her <\/p>\n
    neighbours.  Accused no.3 had 3 sons and one daughter from accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    and 2 sons were living with accused no.3 whereas, the third son and the <\/p>\n
    daughter were living along with the brother of accused no. 2, at Janawadi.\n<\/p>\n
    Regarding the incident, she stated that she returned home at about 2.00 <\/p>\n
    p.m. and after taking her lunch, she had gone to the water tap for fetching <\/p>\n
    water on 07\/04\/1987.   The deceased Nagavva had also visited the water <\/p>\n
    tap at that time and both of them returned to the respective house at about <\/p>\n
    4.00 p.m.. When she was proceeding towards Shevkar Vasti, she looked at <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                           13             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    the house of the accused.  She opened the door of the house of the accused <\/p>\n
    and saw Nagavva lying on the floor.  She admitted in the cross-examination <\/p>\n
    that accused no.1 was  living  at Janwadi and prior  to the marriage  with <\/p>\n
    accused no.2, the deceased was a commercial sex-worker.  The house of the <\/p>\n
    accused consisted of three rooms and did not have any window.  She also <\/p>\n
    admitted that after fetching water, Nagavva had gone to her house.\n<\/p>\n
    13     The trial court has relied upon the testimony of this witness to prove <\/p>\n
    the last scene theory.  It has been held that this witness saw the appellant at <\/p>\n
    about 4.00 p.m. coming out of the house of the deceased on the date of <\/p>\n
    incident and the appellant went away by rubbing his hands.  This evidence <\/p>\n
    relied   upon   by   the   trial   court   is   based   upon   the   question   asked   in   the <\/p>\n
    examination-in-chief by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the <\/p>\n
    reply   thereto   for   ready   reference   both   the   questions   and   answers   are <\/p>\n
    reproduced:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Question:-  When you started  to go, at that time, have you
\n            seen accused  No.1 while coming out of  his house with blood
\n            stains on his hands and face?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Answer:-  Yes.   It   is   true.     The   accused   No.2   went   away   by
\n            rubbing away his hands.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           It is   evident that such a suggestic question in which the reply was <\/p>\n
    implied could not have been allowed by the trial court to be asked by the <\/p>\n
    learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the examination-in-chief.  Though, <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                          14             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    in   the   cross-examination,   this   witness   stated   that   she   had   seen   the <\/p>\n
    appellant at 4.00 p.m., while going out of the house of the deceased, that <\/p>\n
    statement cannot be read as to say that she had seen accused no.1 from <\/p>\n
    coming out of the house of deceased at 4.00 p.m.   The mother tongue of <\/p>\n
    this witness is Marathi and the relevant deposition recorded by the trial <\/p>\n
    court in her cross-examination is reproduced below:-\n<\/p>\n
           “It is correct to say that after fetching the water from the public  <\/p>\n
           tap, Nagavva returned to her house and I went to my house, at
\n           that time, I saw accused No.1 Badesaab going out.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In the examination-in-chief, she has stated that it was around 2.00 <\/p>\n
    p.m.  Nagavva and she had met at the public water tap and after fetching <\/p>\n
    water both of them returned to their respective houses.  It is the evidence <\/p>\n
    of this witness that she had, while going to Shevkar Vasti at about 4.00 <\/p>\n
    p.m., opened the door of the house of the deceased and she had seen her <\/p>\n
    lying.  The evidence of the prosecution is that when accused no.2 returned <\/p>\n
    home at about 5.00 p.m., he had seen Nagavva lying in a pool of blood on <\/p>\n
    the   floor   of   the   house   and   the   doctor’s   evidence   disclosed   a   number   of <\/p>\n
    bleeding injuries on her person.   Obviously, when P.W. 8 opened the door, <\/p>\n
    she ought to have seen some blood flowing on the floor.  Therefore, the last <\/p>\n
    scene theory as so sought to be proved and has been accepted by the trial <\/p>\n
    court, cannot be relied upon on the evidence of this witness. <\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    14     The   suggestic   question   asked   by   the   learned   Additional   Public \n\n\n\n                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>\n                                                        15             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Prosecutor and as reproduced hereinabove, was based on the statement of <\/p>\n
    this witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by the IO during the <\/p>\n
    course of investigation and in the said statement, she purportedly stated <\/p>\n
    that she had seen Nagavva lying dead.   Such a statement does not find <\/p>\n
    place in her examination-in-chief and she only stated that she saw her lying <\/p>\n
    in the house.  The testimony of this witness is, therefore, not reliable and <\/p>\n
    cannot be considered in support of the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
    15<\/span><\/p>\n
           We then come to the evidence of P. W. 9, Dilip Gaikwad.   He stated <\/p>\n
    before the court that on the day of the incident between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m..\n<\/p>\n
    Chandrakant   Zende   had   come   to   his   house   and   informed   him   that <\/p>\n
    something had happened in the house of accused no.2.  He therefore, went <\/p>\n
    towards   the   house   of   accused   no.2   under   the   pretext   of   attending   to <\/p>\n
    nature’s call.   He saw accused no.2 entered his house and again he came <\/p>\n
    out of it. At about 7.00 p.m., he and some boys from the Vasti had come <\/p>\n
    together for collecting contribution for Ambedkar Jayanti and they went to <\/p>\n
    the   house   of   accused   no.2   asking   for   contribution   and   the   boys   wanted <\/p>\n
    accused no.2 to accompany.  Hence, he called out for accused no.2 and he <\/p>\n
    came on 5th call and he was frightened and there was no light in the house.\n<\/p>\n
    The witness requested to accused no.2 to accompany them for collecting <\/p>\n
    the contribution but the accused informed him that he will accompany after <\/p>\n
    one   hour.     The   witness   suspected   the   behaviour   of   accused   no.2   and <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        16            apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    therefore, he asked Mrs. More another witness to go to the house of the <\/p>\n
    accused  so as  to  know what had  happened  there. Accused  no.2 did  not <\/p>\n
    allow her to enter his house and therefore, the neighbours were disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
    Again he and other boys got together at about 10.00 p.m. and went to the <\/p>\n
    house of one Mohan Kamble and told him regarding the happenings.  They <\/p>\n
    requested Mohan Kamble to phone the police, but he refused, because he <\/p>\n
    was   not   aware   about   the   incident.     Therefore,   the   witness   with   others <\/p>\n
    proceeded   towards   the   Hadapsar   Police   Station   and   on   the   way   they <\/p>\n
    decided to phone the Police Station.  He called the police station by giving <\/p>\n
    his name as Shivaji Vishwanath Netake and informed that accused no.2 had <\/p>\n
    beaten his wife and he was in drunken condition.  Within 10 minutes, the <\/p>\n
    police arrived at the scene.  The medical certificate at Exhibit 50 issued by <\/p>\n
    the Casualty Medical Officer, Sassoon Hospital indicated that accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    had not consumed any alcohol.\n<\/p>\n
           In   his   cross-examination,   he   admitted   that   there   was   lock   to   the <\/p>\n
    house of accused at about 5.00 p.m. but he denied the suggestion that the <\/p>\n
    relations   between   the   two   of   them   were   strained.   He   also   denied   the <\/p>\n
    suggestion that he visited the house of Kamble only to involve accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    and therefore, he did telephone to the Police Station by disclosing his name <\/p>\n
    as Shivaji  Vishwanath  Netke.    He  also admitted  that  there  was  a  public <\/p>\n
    latrine   between   the   house   of   Shobha   More   and   the   accused   and   public <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       17            apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    water tap was near the public latrine.  He also admitted that the house of <\/p>\n
    the accused was at the end of the locality. He denied the suggestion that he <\/p>\n
    was a professional police puncha and he was deposing falsely.\n<\/p>\n
    16     P.W. 14, Shobha More, is the last neighbour examined before the  trial <\/p>\n
    court.   On the date of the incident, she had returned home between 2 to <\/p>\n
    2.30 p.m..  While she was going towards the railway bridge for attending to <\/p>\n
    the nature’s call, she had heard shouts of Nagavva “Aho Abba”, while she <\/p>\n
    was passing by the railway track.  Therefore, she went towards the house of <\/p>\n
    Nagavva and she looked through the window.  She saw that accused no.1 <\/p>\n
    was holding hand of Nagavva and he was dragged her.   She thought, it <\/p>\n
    might be a petty quarrel and she went away to attend the natures call.  But <\/p>\n
    while she was returning, she stood talking with another lady for half an <\/p>\n
    hour and by that time accused no.1 came out of the house by raising the <\/p>\n
    sleeves upwards.   Thereafter, she went to her house.   At about 6.30 p.m., <\/p>\n
    Dilip Gaikwad came for collecting contribution and informed that there was <\/p>\n
    no response from the house of accused no.2 and he asked her to visit the <\/p>\n
    house of the accused on the pretext of her son.  She therefore, went to the <\/p>\n
    house of the accused and she saw that accused no.3 was sitting infront of <\/p>\n
    the   house.     She   inquired   with   her   about   the   whereabout   her   son   and <\/p>\n
    returned home.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                         18             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
           In her cross-examination, it was clearly pointed out that the shouts of <\/p>\n
    Nagavva, she heard, “Aho Abba” was not in the police statement and this is <\/p>\n
    proved by evidence of P. W. 15, as well.  She also admitted that she had not <\/p>\n
    stated before the police that after attending to the natures call, she stopped <\/p>\n
    talking with one lady. She also admitted that she had not seen Nagavva <\/p>\n
    while fetching water.  She denied that Nagavva fetched water between 2 to <\/p>\n
    4 pm.  She also stated that there was no lock to the door of the accused and <\/p>\n
    there was no window to the house. She also admitted that the Corporation <\/p>\n
    had constructed the public latrine in our locality.\n<\/p>\n
    17     Thus, this was the only witness of the prosecution who claimed that <\/p>\n
    she had seen the accused no.1 dragging the deceased through the window <\/p>\n
    of the room but in the cross-examination she admitted that there was no <\/p>\n
    window to the house and thus made herself to be an unreliable witness.\n<\/p>\n
    Her testimony could not have been relied upon.   The Sessions Court, has <\/p>\n
    relied   on   the   testimony   of   this   witness   and   therefore,   the   finding   that <\/p>\n
    accused no.1 had committed the murder of Nagavva, is vitiated.   There is <\/p>\n
    no other witness from amongst all these 5 neighbours who had seen the <\/p>\n
    accused either entering or coming out of the house of accused no.2, where <\/p>\n
    Nagavva  was  done  to death between  2 to 5 p.m.   There  were  no other <\/p>\n
    circumstances brought before the trial court by the prosecution to connect <\/p>\n
    accused no. 1 with the murder of Nagavva and more so when he was not <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                          19             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    staying in the said room.\n<\/p>\n
    18     As per the evidence of P.W. 15, Prabhakar Shukla, the Police Inspector, <\/p>\n
    the accused were arrested on 08\/04\/1987 under the arrest panchanama at <\/p>\n
    Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 10.   He had claimed that he had recovered blood <\/p>\n
    stained   shoes   of   accused   no.1   and   his   clothes   as   well   under   recovery <\/p>\n
    panchanama  at   Exhibit   24.     The   clothes  were  also  found  blood   stained.\n<\/p>\n
    However,   his   testimony   is   of   no   significance   as   the   C.A.   report   was   not <\/p>\n
    placed on record and duly exhibited.  For the very same reason, the alleged <\/p>\n
    recovery of Koyta (Sickle) recovered under panchanama at Exhibit 27 at the <\/p>\n
    behest of accused no.1 is of no consequences.\n<\/p>\n
    19     Coming to the motive behind the crime, as per the trial court, the <\/p>\n
    appellant had a strong motive to get rid of his step mother Nagavva who <\/p>\n
    was   a   prostitute   and   the   appellant’s   father   (accused   no.2)   had   illicit <\/p>\n
    relationship with her for about 7 years before he married her.   The trial <\/p>\n
    court observed that it was natural for accused no.1 to dislike the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused no.1 must have been on inimical terms with the deceased.   The <\/p>\n
    trial Court, therefore, stated that within all human probabilities the accused <\/p>\n
    no.1 must have committed the murder of his step mother Nagavva.   It is <\/p>\n
    true   that   accused   no.1,   as   per   the   medical   certificate,   had   sustained   a <\/p>\n
    simple injury on his head and he did not explain as to how he sustained the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        20             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    said injury.  The trial court, on these circumstances held that accused no.1 <\/p>\n
    had   committed   the   murder   of   Nagavva.     We   are   not   impressed   by   the <\/p>\n
    findings recorded by the trial Court on the issue of motive of accused no. 1.\n<\/p>\n
    The evidence indicated that the clothes of accused no.2 were also stained in <\/p>\n
    blood and the trial court observed that he might have probably stained his <\/p>\n
    clothes   while   cleaning   the   floor,   where   the   blood   of   the   deceased   had <\/p>\n
    spread away.\n<\/p>\n
    20<\/span><\/p>\n
           So far as the appeal filed by the State Government against accused <\/p>\n
    Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, the evidence has proved beyond doubts that <\/p>\n
    accused no.2 tried his best to conceal the unnatural death of Nagavva till <\/p>\n
    the  police  constable  reached  his  house.  At the   first  instance,  he  tried  to <\/p>\n
    suppress it from the neighbours, tried to contact P.W. 7 so as to approach <\/p>\n
    P.W. 6 who was Vice President of Anjuman Hidaytul Islam School so as to <\/p>\n
    bury the dead body of Nagavva in the night.  He also cleaned the floor of <\/p>\n
    the room which was stained with blood and thus caused disappearance of <\/p>\n
    the evidence.  The clinching evidence placed on record by the prosecution <\/p>\n
    was sufficient to prove the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC <\/p>\n
    against accused  no.2.\n<\/p>\n
    21     In the premises, Criminal Appeal No.320 of 1990 is hereby allowed <\/p>\n
    and the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 338 of <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        21             apeal320 and 399.90.sxw<\/p>\n
    1997 against accused no.1- appellant is hereby quashed and set aside.  He <\/p>\n
    stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    22     Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990  is partly allowed and accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    is held guilty for screening the offence and causing disappearance of the <\/p>\n
    evidence,   knowing   fully   that   his   wife   was   done   to   death.     Hence,   the <\/p>\n
    offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC is proved against accused no.2 <\/p>\n
    and he is convicted for the same.  He is sentenced to suffer RI for the period <\/p>\n
    he has under detention as an under-trial.  The acquittal of accused no.3 is <\/p>\n
    hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
    23     Bail bonds of all the accused stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n
      (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)                                     (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:22:59 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, Anoop V.Mohta 1 apeal320 and 399.90.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 320 OF 1990 Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh, Age 18 years, Occupation Tailoring, Residing at present in Central Jail, Yeravda, […]<\/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-127669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBadesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 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\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-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=\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-17T18:41:29+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T18:41:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4774,\"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\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T18:41:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 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":"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 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\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-17T18:41:29+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T18:41:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010"},"wordCount":4774,"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\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010","name":"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T18:41:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/badesaab-yusuf-shaikh-vs-wanawadi-police-station-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh vs Wanawadi Police Station on 31 August, 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\/127669","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=127669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}