{"id":136961,"date":"2009-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-22T11:02:17","modified_gmt":"2016-10-22T05:32:17","slug":"rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                           BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:  691\/2008\n                                     WITH\n                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  717\/2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                                     WITH\n                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  728\/2008\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:  691\/2008\n\n    Rammurti s\/o Bapurao Bominwar\n                             \n    Aged about 35 years, occu: Labourer\n    R\/o Akoli (Khurd)\n    Post & Tah. Pandharakwada Dist. Yavatmal   ...             ...APPELLANT\n                            \n               v e r s u s\n      \n\n\n    The State of Maharashtra\n   \n\n\n\n    Through  Police Station Officer\n    Pandharakwada Dist. Yavatmal               ...            ...RESPONDENT\n\n    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  717\/2008\n\n\n\n\n\n    Sk. Javed  @ Bablu Sk.Kurban\n    Aged about  27 years, \n    occu: Private R\/O  at & Po: Akoli\n    Po:  Sonbirdy\n\n\n\n\n\n    Tah. Kelapur Dist. Yavatmal.               ...             ...APPELLANT\n\n\n               v e r s u s\n\n\n    The State of Maharashtra\n    Through  Police Station Officer\n    Pandharakwada Dist. Yavatmal               ...            ...RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::\n                                                                  2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                   \n                                                                                     \n    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  728\/2008\n\n\n    Praful  Narsingrao Padelwar\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    Aged about 26 years\n    R\/o Akoli (Khurd)\n    P.S.  Pandharakwada Dist. Yavatmal                                        ...             ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                      v e r s u s        \n    The State of Maharashtra\n                                        \n    Through  Police Station Officer\n    Pandharakwada Dist. Yavatmal                                              ...                ...RESPONDENT\n       \n\n\n    ............................................................................................................................\n    \n\n\n\n                       Mr. M I Dhatrak, Adv.for appellant (in Cri.Appeal No.691\/2008)\n                       Mr  S.V.Dongre, Adv.for appellant(in Cri.Appeal No. 717\/2008)\n                       Mr  Apurva De,Adv.for appellant (in Cri.Appeal No.728\/2008)\n                       Mr Anup Parihar, Addl.Public Prosecutor  for Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         CORAM:   A.P.BHANGALE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                         DATE OF  RESERVING: 30.09.2009
\n                                         DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.10.2009<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.                The   appellants     were   charge-sheeted   and   prosecuted   for <\/p>\n
                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
    commission   of   offence   punishable     under   section   376(2)(g)   of   the   Indian <\/p>\n
    Penal Code ( in short “IPC”) for having committed rape upon prosecutrix  on <\/p>\n
    27.1.2004 at about  00.20 hours.   By judgment  and  order dated   11.9.2008 <\/p>\n
    in  Sessions  Trial   No.11\/2004,   the   learned   Special     Judge,   Pandharakwada <\/p>\n
    Dist. Yavatmal,    found them guilty   and imposed punishment for offence of <\/p>\n
    rape awarding jail sentences for ten years each and   fine in the sum   of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1000\/- ,in default,   to undergo   further imprisonment for three months to <\/p>\n
    each   of   the   appellants   for   offences   of   house   trespass,       punishable   under <\/p>\n
    section 450,  for period of thee years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1000\/-each, <\/p>\n
    and further imprisonment of three months.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            The     said   judgment   and   order   is   under   challenge   by   means   of <\/p>\n
    these Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The   prosecution   case briefly   stated is     :     On 27.1.2004     at <\/p>\n
    about 8.00 p.m. the prosecutrix-Sujata took her meals was alone in house at <\/p>\n
    Akoli   (Khurd),     Taluqa   Kelapur   ;while   her   husband   Kapil   had   gone       to <\/p>\n
    Nagpur.   At  about 12.00 midnight,   as  she heard a knock on the door  she <\/p>\n
    got   up     and   saw   accused   coming     from   outside   the   door.       Accused <\/p>\n
    Ramamurti, Praful and Sheikh Javed  Sk.Kurban     R\/o  Akoli  were playing <\/p>\n
    carrom in the locality   and, therefore, were known to the prosecutrix.  They <\/p>\n
    had   asked   prosecutrix   to   open   the   door     and   also   asked   whether   Kapil <\/p>\n
    ( husband of prosecutrix) was in the house.    Prosecutrix told them that  her <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    husband   was   not     in   the   home   and   she   would   not   open   the     door.\n<\/p>\n
    Preosecutrix   went again to sleep   on the cot.         After about   20 minutes, <\/p>\n
    those   three accused persons had trespassed in the house form the rooftop <\/p>\n
    removing the Mangalore tiles on the house.   Accused Praful Padelwar woke <\/p>\n
    her   up   by  his  hand   and   by  another   hand     pressed   her   mouth   so   that  she <\/p>\n
    should not   raise shouts;   while   accused Sk. Javed opened     buttons of her <\/p>\n
    blouse.   Ramamurti   caught   her   hands   and   legs.     They   did   not   allow   the <\/p>\n
    prosecutrix to move or raise shouts.   Sk. Javed removed her saree,  lifted her <\/p>\n
    petticoat   and   removed   her   nicker.       He   forcibly   pressed   her   breasts   and <\/p>\n
    committed sexual intercourse.   Then he opened the door  and went outside.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter,   Ramamurthi Bominwar committed forcible sexual       intercourse <\/p>\n
    with her in same manner.     Lastly,   Praful pressed her mouth and did not <\/p>\n
    allow prosecutrix to shout.     Praful had helped other two to commit sexual <\/p>\n
    intercourse   through   he   himself   did   not     commit   sexual   intercourse.       On <\/p>\n
    28.1.2004     at about 8.00 a.m.,   the prosecutrix narrated the incident o her <\/p>\n
    nighbour-Gulabrao Bhanarkar  who advised prosecutrix  to  wait till arrival of <\/p>\n
    her husband  from Nagpur and then to lodge a complaint  at Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus, after arrival of her husband, she narrated the whole incident to him and <\/p>\n
    then  both of them approached the Police Station.    Her complaint gave rise <\/p>\n
    to   Crime     No.   16\/2004   registered     at   Pandharkwada     Police   Station   on <\/p>\n
    28.1.2004 at 23.00 hours.    The prosecutrix-Sujata   (PW 1)   deposed before <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Court about the incident and oral report  and FIR (Exhs.  34 and 35).   FIR <\/p>\n
    was     recorded by   Deelip Tidke (PW   5).   Learned APP submitted that her <\/p>\n
    evidence as above, remained unshaken   in material     particulars   so as to <\/p>\n
    identify   the accused since prior to the incident, as also the incident of gang-\n<\/p>\n
    rape. According to prosecutrix,     her hands and legs were caught   and her <\/p>\n
    mouth     was   gagged   and,     therefore,   she   could   not   resist.       She   had   also <\/p>\n
    suffered injury on her private part and her chests (breasts) were swollen. PW <\/p>\n
    2-Kapil  (husband  of prosecutrix)  had returned to Akoli  on 28.1.2004  when <\/p>\n
    prosecutrix   narrated       the   incident   to     him.     One   Gajanan     Madikuntwar <\/p>\n
    (Accused No.4),   {maternal uncle of the accused -Ramamurthi}       tried to <\/p>\n
    bribe the witness Kapil in order to prevent lodging  of FIR.    PW 3 Siddhartha <\/p>\n
    is a panch witness about Panchnama Exh.38; seizure   of nicker;   bed-sheet, <\/p>\n
    shawl; petticoat. Spot Panchnama (Exh.39) mentions  that three tiles of roof <\/p>\n
    above hearth   near northern wall,       was seen removed from which place <\/p>\n
    accused trespassed in.    Semen stains were seen on mattress.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            Dr. D.A.   Chaudhary (PW  4)  deposed  as to the certificate (Exh.\n<\/p>\n
    44) issued by him.   According to   him, the prosecutrix was         capable of <\/p>\n
    performing   intercourse. Although   he could  not give expert opinion as to <\/p>\n
    commission   of   forcible   sexual   intercourse,   he   had       collected   pubic   hair, <\/p>\n
    vaginal swab, blood sample sealed and handed over to lady Head Constable <\/p>\n
    Vanmala.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.            About medical  examination of accused –  Praful,  Dr. Chaudhary <\/p>\n
    found that all accused were capable  to do sexual intercourse.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            Dr.   Choudhary     did   not   notice   general   symptoms   of     forceful <\/p>\n
    sexual intercourse on prosecutrix  on the person of Sujata (Prosecutrix).\n<\/p>\n
    6.            PW6-Sheshrao   Pande   deposed   about   investigation     done   in   the <\/p>\n
    case.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            The   accused led defence evidence of   Matil Shaikh   and Arun <\/p>\n
    Bontawar who deposed about accused  who were  friends of Kapil  ( husband <\/p>\n
    of prosecutrix) were often visiting   house of Kapil.     The identity   of   the <\/p>\n
    accused,   therefore,   is   beyond     dispute   as   they   were   known   to   prosecutrix <\/p>\n
    prior to the  incident.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            Learned Advocates for appellants contended that the appellants <\/p>\n
    could not have entered from the roof by   removing Mangalore tiles and by <\/p>\n
    that   time   the   prosecutrix   would   have   raised   shouts   to   invite   attention   of <\/p>\n
    neighbours.   It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had  stated that she <\/p>\n
    narrated the incident to Gulabrao Bhanarkar on the next morning ; but he <\/p>\n
    was not examined to prove this fact.   Kapil, husband  of the prosecutrix, came <\/p>\n
    back from Nagpur  at about 4.00p.m. Then  prosecutrix narrated the incident <\/p>\n
    to him;  but the FIR   was lodged after  much delay which ought to have been <\/p>\n
    explained.   It is lastly submitted that   suspicion     howsoever strong can not <\/p>\n
    amount to proof   and, therefore,     for   want   of legal proof the appellants <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    ought to have  been acquitted by the trial Court. Reference is made to the <\/p>\n
    ruling in  Krishna  Raut vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> : 2008 All.M R (Cri) 656.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            Learned   APP   in   support   of   the   impugned   judgment   and   order <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   accused\/appellants     were   known     to   the   prosecutrix <\/p>\n
    because they were friends   of Kapil. (her husband) and as such,   they were <\/p>\n
    well-acquainted   with   house;     had    climbed   on  roof,     chose  to   remove   big <\/p>\n
    Mangalore tiles of the roof to make an entry in the house from rooftop as <\/p>\n
    they intended to commit  the heinous crime.  Considering the time of  arrival <\/p>\n
    of   her   husband     Kapil     at   about   4.00   p.m.   on   next   day,   the   prosecutrix <\/p>\n
    waited for his arrival and after narrating the incident to him, they must have <\/p>\n
    pondered   over   to   decide   to   lodge     a   complaint     at   nighttime   by   going   to <\/p>\n
    Pandharkwada Police Station. Therefore, there   was no inordinate   delay to <\/p>\n
    lodge the complaint.   According to  learned APP,  necessary evidence was led <\/p>\n
    by the prosecution to prove the charge and non-examination     of   Gulabrao <\/p>\n
    Bhanarkar   was of no consequence  as it was of a hearsay nature.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           I have considered the submissions   advanced     at the Bar   and <\/p>\n
    perused  the evidence on record.   From  the  evidence on record, it appears <\/p>\n
    that the incident   had occurred on 27.01.2004     at about 12 O’ clock mid-\n<\/p>\n
    night when husband of prosecutrix had gone  to Nagpur. He returned  at 4.00 <\/p>\n
    p.m. On  28.1.2004.     After prosecutrix narrated  the incident to him, they <\/p>\n
    went to Pandharkwada     Police Station to lodge report.     Thus, there was <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    reasonable  and plausible  reason for delay which was not inordinate, in the <\/p>\n
    facts and circumstances considering that   a lady   who is raped   go through <\/p>\n
    great emotional turmoil before deciding to lodge the  complaint.\n<\/p>\n
    12.          Although the prosecutrix   was       cross-examined     at length, her <\/p>\n
    evidence as to the incident remained unshaken in the main and, therefore, <\/p>\n
    veracity  of her evidence can not be doubted.    There is no reason to doubt <\/p>\n
    evidence of her husband  Kapil (PW 2) also.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          It is  also argued that there were  no injuries on her private part <\/p>\n
    and on physical     body, according to medical evidence led in this case. This <\/p>\n
    submission is advanced   with an argument that the trial Court should have <\/p>\n
    disbelieved the prosecutrix.   However considering the fact that prosecutrix is <\/p>\n
    a married lady, it was not necessary that injuries should have been found on <\/p>\n
    her private part. The defence  suggested,  in the course of cross-examination <\/p>\n
    of the prosecutrix,   “it is  not  true to say that in the absence of my husband I <\/p>\n
    was calling boys in the village in day and night”.     The appellants had not <\/p>\n
    taken plea of a consensual sex in their     statement u\/s 313 of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    There was no evidence of any political enmity  as suggested,   which can lead <\/p>\n
    to such serious complaint about gang rape by  a married lady.\n<\/p>\n
    14.          Thus,   looking   to   the   totality     of   evidence   there   was   enough, <\/p>\n
    cogent,     reliable     and   trustworthy   evidence.   Hence   the   conviction     and <\/p>\n
    sentence awarded by the trial Court  was well-founded and there is no merit <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
    or substance   whatsoever in these Appeal.       In the result, all Appeals   are <\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:13:39 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 691\/2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 717\/2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728\/2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 691\/2008 Rammurti s\/o Bapurao Bominwar Aged about 35 years, occu: Labourer R\/o […]<\/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-136961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 - 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\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-22T05:32:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T05:32:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1474,\"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\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T05:32:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 - 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\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-22T05:32:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T05:32:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009"},"wordCount":1474,"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\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009","name":"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T05:32:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammurti-vs-unknown-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rammurti vs Unknown on 15 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/136961","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=136961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}