{"id":164849,"date":"2008-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-29T20:22:56","modified_gmt":"2018-11-29T14:52:56","slug":"pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                 1\n\n\n                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                              BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO:144\/2004\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                Pramilabai w\/o Bhikaram More\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                Aged about 52 years\n                R\/o Anakwadi Po: Akoti (Kh)\n                Tq & Dist. Akola.y          ..                         APPLICANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                versus\n\n    1.          State of Maharashtra\n                Through Police Station Officer\n                Akot Fail Police Station\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                Akot, Tq.akot Dist. Akola.\n\n    2.\n                              \n                Gajanan s\/o Onkar Tekade\n                Aged about 33 years, occu: Service.\n                             \n    3.          Smt. Suman @ Sumitrabai Onkar Tekade\n                Aged about 76 years, occu: household\n\n    4.          Damodhar Shankar Tekade\n       \n\n                Aged about 52 years, occu: Service.\n    \n\n\n\n                Respondents 2 to 4 are R\/o\n                Mhatodi Tq & Dist. Akola.               ...            RESPONDENTs\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                 Mr Sameer Sohoni Advocate for the applicant\n\n\n\n\n\n                 Mr. S Y Deopujari APP for R-1\n                 Respondents 2 to 4 served\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                              CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                              DATED : 08th October, 2008<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
              The petitioner ( first informant),                has      questioned the<\/p>\n
    legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order<\/p>\n
    dated 8.1.2004        in Sessions Trial No.    56\/2006            passed by learned<\/p>\n
    Sessions Judge, Akola.         It appears that the petitioner is the mother of<\/p>\n
    deceased Urmila       who was married to Gajanan Omkar Tekade on 23rd<\/p>\n
    June 1999.    Urmila was residing at village Mhatodi              Tq. & Dist. Akola<\/p>\n
    after her marriage.      It is alleged that whenever she used to visit her<\/p>\n
    parents, she used to complain about ill-treatment and harassment<\/p>\n
    received from her husband and other in-laws.            It is further alleged that<\/p>\n
    there was demand<\/p>\n
                           for   dowry    from     Respondent ( original accused-\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent No.2 ).       The     Respondent-Damodar          Shankar         Tekade is<\/p>\n
    uncle of Gajanan Onkar Tekade and respondent Suman @ Sumitrabai<\/p>\n
    is the mother of Gajanan Onkar Tekade. It is alleged that they were also<\/p>\n
    instigating Gajanan to beat Urmila ( deceased ) over              demand of dowry.\n<\/p>\n
    Further, according to the applicant,          as a result of ill-treatment and<\/p>\n
    harassment, her daughter Urmila committed suicide                by gulping poison<\/p>\n
    and in the result she had died at night intervening between 11.11.2002<\/p>\n
    and 12.11.2002.       It appears that as a result of report by the petitioner<\/p>\n
    to the   police which was typewritten           by her Advocate addressed to<\/p>\n
    Station House Officer Akot        Fail Police Station,      Akola,        crime       was<\/p>\n
    registered and investigated.      In the result, the respondent nos. 2 to 4<\/p>\n
    were charge-sheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Akola                       who,<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
    committed the case to the Court of Sessions Akola as accusations were<\/p>\n
    u\/s 306     read with section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.           The charge<\/p>\n
    was framed against the accused on 6.8.2003, to which they pleaded not<\/p>\n
    guilty and claimed to be tried.      In support of the prosecution case, the<\/p>\n
    prosecution examined      as many as four        witnesses and closed the<\/p>\n
    evidence by praecipe     ( Exh.42)   on 8.1.2004.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          It appears that    considering the short evidence            led by the<\/p>\n
    prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge, Akola decided the case on the<\/p>\n
    same day by the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
    3.<\/p>\n
                It is the grievance of the applicant that some more witnesses<\/p>\n
    were also expected to be examined in the case.        One Ashok Vishwasrao<\/p>\n
    More was to be examined on 9.1.2004; however, the learned Addl. Public<\/p>\n
    Prosecutor     gave a praecipe that prosecution do not want to examine<\/p>\n
    any other witness.       The praecipe was given at Exh.41                  by which<\/p>\n
    witnesses were listed whom prosecution did not want to examine.                       It<\/p>\n
    appears that Sr.No..8         the name of     Ashok Vishwasrao More also<\/p>\n
    appears.      Thus, the prosecution had chosen not to examine him. That<\/p>\n
    being so,    it cannot be said that some       more witnesses were to be<\/p>\n
    examined by the prosecution.      The applicant who was first informant in<\/p>\n
    the case, did not apply in the trial Court nor protested before the Trial<\/p>\n
    Court on the ground that the case of the prosecution ought not to have<\/p>\n
    been closed on that day or that some more witnesses were essential for<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
    just decision of the case.       She could have applied under section 311<\/p>\n
    of the Cr.P.C. had she        insisted that evidence of more witnesses was<\/p>\n
    essential for just decision of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    4.         I have heard submissions at the Bar advanced               by the learned<\/p>\n
    counsel for the applicant      as also by the learned APP and perused the<\/p>\n
    impugned judgment and order.        The trial Court had observed thus “It is<\/p>\n
    admitted position that         accused did not demand anything during<\/p>\n
    marriage     and had   accepted everything that was          voluntarily given to<\/p>\n
    Urmila by her parents.        Admittedly she had been to the place                of her<\/p>\n
    parents from Akola itself      when she was brought in the hospital of Dr.<\/p>\n
    Dahankar on 11.11.2002”.\n<\/p>\n
    5.         Looking at these observations as also the reasons assigned<\/p>\n
    for acquittal, it must be noted that applicant Pramilabai              and her sons<\/p>\n
    Ashok and Vilas were interrogated by the police immediately                   after the<\/p>\n
    death of Urmila and the trial Court        noted further that all of them have<\/p>\n
    stated that they    do not       have any complaint        against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus, the allegations levelled      were duly considered in the impugned<\/p>\n
    judgment. The trial Court had posed a question that if at all Urmila was<\/p>\n
    repeatedly telling her parents about the alleged incident of ill-treatment<\/p>\n
    and harassment what prevented Pramila and her sons from disclosing<\/p>\n
    such facts    to the police    at the earliest   opportunity.       There       was no<\/p>\n
    explanation or     answer to this question. Furthermore, it was also<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    admitted by petitioner Pramila in the trial Court that complaint (Exh.22)<\/p>\n
    was drafted by her Advocate. It may be noted that the complaint dated<\/p>\n
    20.11.2002 typewritten in Marathi             was    reported to the police              on<\/p>\n
    21.11.2002 at 16.40 hours. According to the applicant she had received<\/p>\n
    psychological    shock after last rites of her daughter and when she felt<\/p>\n
    proper she reported it to the police on 21.11.2002.              Be that, as it may,<\/p>\n
    since the complaint     was admittedly drafted by her Advocate, it                     was<\/p>\n
    necessary for the applicant    to explain delay         satisfactorily in the trial<\/p>\n
    Court.          My   attention is also invited         by learned Addl. Public<\/p>\n
    Prosecutor’s to the communication dated 2.3.2005                    addressed to the<\/p>\n
    Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench Nagpur from the Law & Judiciary<\/p>\n
    Department of the State of Maharashtra,             that the Department did not<\/p>\n
    consider it as a fit case for filing appeal in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         For all these reasons, no interference is called for in the<\/p>\n
    judgment and order       of acquittal       of Respondent Nos. 2           to 4.         No<\/p>\n
    ground whatsoever is made       out     for interference with the impugned<\/p>\n
    judgment and order. Revision is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO:144\/2004 Pramilabai w\/o Bhikaram More Aged about 52 years R\/o Anakwadi Po: Akoti (Kh) Tq & Dist. Akola.y .. APPLICANT versus 1. State of […]<\/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-164849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 - 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\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-29T14:52:56+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T14:52:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":933,\"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\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T14:52:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 - 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\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-29T14:52:56+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T14:52:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008"},"wordCount":933,"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\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008","name":"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T14:52:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramilabai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pramilabai vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/164849","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=164849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164849\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}