{"id":1437,"date":"2011-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-08T20:30:55","modified_gmt":"2019-01-08T15:00:55","slug":"sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                   1                          crapl526.01\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2001\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Sanjaykumar s\/o Kishanlal Jain,\n     Age: 21 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o. Selamba, Tq. Sangbare,\n     Dist.Bharuch (Gujrat State).                ..   APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                               \n               Versus\n                  \n     The State of Maharashtra.                   ..  RESPONDENT\n                 \n                    .....\n\n     Mr. Gaurav Deshpande, Advocate holding for\n     Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate  for the Appellant.\n     Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent\/State.\n      \n\n\n                   ......\n   \n\n\n\n                        CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                       DATE :  28TH FEBRUARY,2011.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
               This   appeal   is   filed   by   the   accused-\n<\/p>\n
     appellant   herein,   challenging   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
     order   dated   29-11-2001   passed   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
     Additional     Sessions   Judge   and   Special   Judge, <\/p>\n
     Shahada in Other Sessions Case No.16 of 2000 (Old <\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                      2                           crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     O.S.C.No. 258 of 1994).\n<\/p>\n
     2.         The   case   of   the   prosecution   can   be <\/p>\n
     briefly narrated as under:\n<\/p>\n
                Sukhlal Ahire, father of the complainant <\/p>\n
     Sudam  Ahire,  who  is now no  more,  used  to  sit  in <\/p>\n
     front of the shop of the complainant Sudam Ahire <\/p>\n
     and   carry   on   business   of   boot   polishing.     The <\/p>\n
     complainant   Sudam   Ahire   belongs   to   cobbler <\/p>\n
     community   which   is   recognised   as   a   scheduled <\/p>\n
     caste.   All the accused belong to Jain community <\/p>\n
     which  does  not  fall either  under  Scheduled  caste <\/p>\n
     or under Scheduled tribe.   It is further alleged <\/p>\n
     that   on   25-05-1994   at   about   15-00   hours   on   the <\/p>\n
     Main   Road   at   village   Khapar,   the   accused   NO.   3 <\/span><\/p>\n
     Sanjaykumar drove his vehicle through the articles <\/p>\n
     used   for   the   boot   polish   business   belonging   to <\/p>\n
     Sukhlal   Ahire   and   thereby   caused   damage   of   more <\/p>\n
     than  Rs.50\/-.  While said  Suklal Ahire  was  making <\/p>\n
     enquiry about the damage caused to him, to accused <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3                           crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     No.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 also came there.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         It   is   alleged   that   all   the   accused   not <\/p>\n
     being   members   of   either   scheduled   caste   or <\/p>\n
     scheduled   tribe,   intentionally   insulted,   with <\/p>\n
     intent to humiliate, the complainant Sudam Suklal, <\/p>\n
     his father Suklal Ahire and brother Hiraman Suklal <\/p>\n
     Ahire, members of Scheduled Caste, in public place <\/p>\n
     within  public  view, by  giving  them  abusements  in <\/p>\n
     the name of their caste as “Sale, Chamar Mat Gaye <\/p>\n
     hein”.  It is further alleged that all the accused <\/p>\n
     voluntarily   caused   hurt   to   the   complainant   Sudam <\/p>\n
     by giving him fist blows and by giving bite to his <\/p>\n
     brother Hiraman.  The accused gave them abusements <\/p>\n
     in   filthy   language.     It   is   alleged   that   accused <\/p>\n
     No.3  by driving his vehicle through the articles <\/p>\n
     used for the business of boot polish belonging to <\/p>\n
     Suklal   Ahire,   caused   him   damage   of   more   than <\/p>\n
     Rs.50\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                The witnesses present there separated the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4                          crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     incident.     The   complainant   then   approached   the <\/p>\n
     police   Outpost   of   village   Khapar   and   lodged <\/p>\n
     complaint   Exh.   26.     On   basis   of   said   complaint, <\/p>\n
     offence came to be registered under Sections 3(1)<\/p>\n
     (x)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes     and   the   Scheduled <\/p>\n
     Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989   and <\/p>\n
     under   Sections   323,324,   504,   and   427   read   with <\/p>\n
     Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the <\/p>\n
     accused.   The   injured   came   to   be   referred   to   the <\/p>\n
     Medical   Officer   for   examination   and   treatment.\n<\/p>\n
     The   Investigating   Officer   visited   the   place   of <\/p>\n
     occurrence and draw panchnama of scene of offence.\n<\/p>\n
     He   collected   medical   certificate   of   the   injures <\/p>\n
     from   the   Medical   Officer.   The   Investigating <\/p>\n
     Officer recorded statements of the witnesses.   He <\/p>\n
     also   obtained   the   caste   certificate   of   the <\/p>\n
     complainant   Sudam   Suklal   Ahire   and   after   due <\/p>\n
     completion   of   investigation,   he   submitted   charge <\/p>\n
     sheet   in   the   Court   of   the   learned   J.M.F.C.   at <\/p>\n
     Taloda.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      5                          crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     4.        The offence punishable under Section 3(1)<\/p>\n
     (x)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled <\/p>\n
     Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  being <\/p>\n
     exclusively   triable   by   the   Special   Judge,   the <\/p>\n
     learned J.M.F.C. Taloda, committed the case to the <\/p>\n
     Court   of   the   Special   Judge   at   Dhule.     After <\/p>\n
     establishment  of  this  Court at  Shahada, the case <\/p>\n
     in hand came to be transferred and as such all the <\/p>\n
     accused have been tried by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        Charge   Exh.17   came   to   be   framed   against <\/p>\n
     the   accused.   The   particulars   of   accusation   were <\/p>\n
     read   over   and   explained   to   the   accused   in <\/p>\n
     vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty.  The <\/p>\n
     defence   of   the   accused   is   that,   there   are   two <\/p>\n
     groups in Jain community at their village Khapar.\n<\/p>\n
     Mohan Seth is the head of the rival group and at <\/p>\n
     his   instance,   the   complainant   Sudam   lodged   false <\/p>\n
     complaint against them.\n<\/p>\n
     6.        After recording the evidence and hearing <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6                           crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     the   Counsel   for   the   parties,   learned   Additional <\/p>\n
     Sessions   Judge   and   Special   Judge,   Shahada   held <\/p>\n
     guilty   the   appellant   herein   for   the   offence <\/p>\n
     punishable  under  Section  427  of the Indian  Penal <\/p>\n
     Code   and   convicted   under   Section   235(2)   of   the <\/p>\n
     Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.     He   is   sentenced   to <\/p>\n
     suffer   simple   imprisonment   for   one   month   and   to <\/p>\n
     pay a fine of Rs.500\/- (Rs. Five hundred only), in <\/p>\n
     default   of   payment   of   fine,   he   has   to   undergo <\/p>\n
     further   simple   imprisonment   for   a   period   of <\/p>\n
     fifteen days. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         Learned   Counsel   for   the   appellant <\/p>\n
     submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed <\/p>\n
     to bring on record any overtact on the part of the <\/p>\n
     appellant-accused to cause wrongful loss or damage <\/p>\n
     to the respondent.   He further submitted that out <\/p>\n
     of   four   witnesses,   which   were   examined   by   the <\/p>\n
     prosecution, one is the Investigating Officer and <\/p>\n
     remaining   three   witnesses   have   turned   hostile.\n<\/p>\n
     Nothing   has   been   gathered   from   the   spot,   as <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7                          crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     revealed   from   the   spot   panchnama.     He   further <\/p>\n
     submitted that unless the calculation is done, it <\/p>\n
     cannot   be   said   that   the   appellant-accused <\/p>\n
     committed   mischief   and   thereby   caused   loss   or <\/p>\n
     damage to the amount of Rs.50\/- or upwards to the <\/p>\n
     respondent.   Learned   Counsel   for   the   appellant <\/p>\n
     invited my attention to the impugned judgment and <\/p>\n
     reasons recorded by the trial Court and submitted <\/p>\n
     that   the   trial   Court   has   not   discussed   any <\/p>\n
     evidence   and   in   absence   of   any   discussion   about <\/p>\n
     the   evidence   brought   on   record,   the   trial   Court <\/p>\n
     has   convicted   the   accused-appellant.     Therefore, <\/p>\n
     Counsel   for   the   appellant   would   submit   that   the <\/p>\n
     appellant-accused deserves to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
     8.        On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the <\/p>\n
     respondent   –   State,     relying   on   the   reasons <\/p>\n
     recorded   by   the   trial   Court   and   upon   reading <\/p>\n
     provisions   of   Section   427   of   the   Indian   Penal <\/p>\n
     Code, would submit that, mens-rea is not necessary <\/p>\n
     to fulfill the ingredients of the Section 427 of <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       8                          crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   therefore,   the   trial <\/p>\n
     Court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused <\/p>\n
     since   he   caused   damage   to   the   property   of   the <\/p>\n
     respondent.    Therefore, he  would  submit that  the <\/p>\n
     appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         I   have   given   due   consideration   to   the <\/p>\n
     submission   of   the   Counsel   for   the   appellant   and <\/p>\n
     learned A.P.P.  for  the  respondent-State.   I have <\/p>\n
     carefully   perused   the   Record   and   Proceedings   and <\/p>\n
     also impugned judgment. It is not in dispute that <\/p>\n
     complainant Sudam Ahire and injured Hiraman Ahire <\/p>\n
     turned hostile.   They were examined at Exhibit-25 <\/p>\n
     and 29 respectively.  They have stated before the <\/p>\n
     Court   that   no   such   incident   had   happened   and <\/p>\n
     nobody   gave   them   abusement   in   the   name   of   their <\/p>\n
     caste.  Another witness namely P.W. 2 also did not <\/p>\n
     support   the   prosecution   case   and   did   not   state <\/p>\n
     anything against the accused. P.S.I. Mr. Deshmukh, <\/p>\n
     who is  the  Investigating  Officer  is not examined <\/p>\n
     by the prosecution and also Medical Officer is not <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9                          crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     examined, and there is no evidence to the effect <\/p>\n
     that   the   accused   voluntarily   caused   hurt   to <\/p>\n
     complainant   Sudam   Ahire   and   his   brother   Hiraman <\/p>\n
     Ahire and they received injuries.\n<\/p>\n
     10.         Upon   perusal   of   the   spot   panchnama,   it <\/p>\n
     does not support to the prosecution story.  It is <\/p>\n
     admitted  position  that, there  is  no any exercise <\/p>\n
     to   calculate   the   alleged   loss   sustained   by   the <\/p>\n
     complainant.\n<\/p>\n
     11.         In   my   opinion,   the   standard   of   proof <\/p>\n
     required in criminal case has not been brought on <\/p>\n
     record  by  the  prosecution.    When  the  prosecution <\/p>\n
     witnesses   turned   hostile   including   the <\/p>\n
     complainant, in that case, the trial Court was not <\/p>\n
     correct   in   convicting   the   appellant-accused.     In <\/p>\n
     my   opinion,   there   was   no   sufficient,   cogent   and <\/p>\n
     clinching   evidence   to   convict   the   appellant-\n<\/p>\n
     accused.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      10                          crapl526.01<\/p>\n
     12.        Therefore,   in   my   opinion,   the   impugned <\/p>\n
     judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   trial   Court   is <\/p>\n
     required  to be  interfered.    Accordingly,  same  is <\/p>\n
     quashed   and   set   aside.   Appeal   is   allowed.     The <\/p>\n
     appellant-accused   is   acquitted   for   the   offence <\/p>\n
     punishable under  Section 427 of the Indian Penal <\/p>\n
     Code.   His   bail   bond   stands   cancelled.   Amount   of <\/p>\n
     fine   of   Rs.500\/-   (Rs.   Five   hundred   only)     be <\/p>\n
     returned   to   the   appellant-accused.   Appeal   stands <\/p>\n
     disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
     13.        Original Record and Proceedings, if any, <\/p>\n
     be sent back forthwith, to the concerned Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                      [S. S. SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     sut\/feb11\/criapl526.01<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:01:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 crapl526.01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2001 Sanjaykumar s\/o Kishanlal Jain, Age: 21 years, Occ: Business, R\/o. Selamba, Tq. Sangbare, Dist.Bharuch (Gujrat State). .. APPELLANT Versus […]<\/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-1437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 - 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\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-08T15:00:55+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-08T15:00:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1337,\"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\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-08T15:00:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 - 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\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-08T15:00:55+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-08T15:00:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011"},"wordCount":1337,"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\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011","name":"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-08T15:00:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjaykumar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjaykumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/1437","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=1437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}