{"id":168197,"date":"2008-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-11T06:57:40","modified_gmt":"2016-08-11T01:27:40","slug":"balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: P.V. Hardas, P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n     Balaji s\/o. Gangaram Navghare                           ]..Appellant\n     Age. 35 years, Occ. Nil,\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     R\/o. At post Malvata, Tq. Basmat,\n     Dist. Parbhani presently in\n     Nashik Central Jail.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                                         VERSUS\n\n\n     The State of Maharashtra                                ]..Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     Mr. Suresh Mundhe, Advocate (appointed) for the\n     appellant.\n                           \n     Mrs. R.R. Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent\/State.\n\n                                         CORAM : P.V. HARDAS &\n                                                 P.R. BORKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                         DATED : 12th NOVEMBER, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT : [PER : P.R. BORKAR,J.] :-\n<\/p>\n
     .          Appellant – Balaji s\/o.             Gangaram Navghare has<\/p>\n
     filed     this        appeal     being aggrieved by the            order       of<\/p>\n
     conviction        and     sentence passed in Sessions Case                   No.<\/p>\n
     47   of 1999, decided by learned First Adhoc Additional<\/p>\n
     Sessions        Judge,     Parbhani on 02.05.2006, whereby                   the<\/p>\n
     present     appellant is convicted of offences punishable<\/p>\n
     under     Sections       363, 376 and 302 of the              I.P.C.         and<\/p>\n
     sentenced        to     suffer    different     sentences          for      each<\/p>\n
     offence.         Learned       First   Adhoc    Additional           Sessions<\/p>\n
     Judge     has     sentenced       the accused      to     suffer         simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.100\/-, in<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (    2    )<\/p>\n
     default,         to undergo simple imprisonment for one month<\/p>\n
     for     offence        punishable under Section 363 the                      I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     The      appellant           is   sentenced         to       suffer          simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonment           for    seven years and to pay fine of                      Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     100\/-,        in default, to suffer simple imprisonment                           for<\/p>\n
     one     month for offence punishable under Section 376 of<\/p>\n
     the     I.P.C.       For offence punishable under Section                         302<\/p>\n
     of    the      I.P.C.        the appellant is sentenced to                   suffer<\/p>\n
     simple        imprisonment for life (sic) and to pay fine of<\/p>\n
     Rs.      100\/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment<\/p>\n
     for one month.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          At      the outset we express our shock,                      surprise<\/p>\n
     and     displeasure          for awarding simple imprisonment                       of<\/p>\n
     seven       years      for each of the offences under                     Sections<\/p>\n
     363     and      376 of the I.P.C.             when as per         the     learned<\/p>\n
     Additional Sessions Judge, the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
     is    that       the    appellant          had     kidnapped,         raped       and<\/p>\n
     murdered         a ten years old girl.             We are also surprised<\/p>\n
     to find phrase “simple imprisonment for life”.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          Brief      facts giving rise to this appeal may be<\/p>\n
     stated as below:-<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     .           Dropadabai         was       ten   years      old      daughter         of\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n                                                 (    3   )\n\n\n\n\n     P.W.2-Dwarkabai                Alne.           Both were living            by     begging\n\n     alms     and were residing at Parbhani.                           On 13.07.1998 at\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n     about     12=00           noon,       the       appellant        who      was     knowing\n\n     Dwarkabai,              took    Dropadabai on promise of giving                          her\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n     food     and        went away.            Thereafter Dropadabai                  did     not\n\n     return.            Dwarkabai,          her sister and             others         searched\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     Dropadabai,              but    she was not found.                They       approached\n\n     Police        on        the next day and police took them                         to     the\n\n     Hospital           to     show a dead body.                It was identified               as\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n     that     of        Dropadabai.            There were several injuries                      on\n\n     the       person\n                               ig   of          Dropadabai\n\n<\/pre>\n
     P.W.2-Dwarkabai lodged complaint with Police.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      and         thereafter\n                             \n     4.         It           is prosecution case that on 14.07.1998                             at\n\n     12=00     noon           Police Inspector Bhosale (P.W.1) who                            was\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     holding additional charge of Nananpeth Police Station,<\/p>\n
     received           information         from one Ashok               Pralhad          Shinde<\/p>\n
     (P.W.4)        that        his       servant had seen a                dead      body      of<\/p>\n
     female        child in his field.                   Thereafter, P.I.              Bhosale<\/p>\n
     recorded           statement         of        P.W.4-Ashok Shinde              and      made<\/p>\n
     entry in the station diary.                         P.I.     Bhosale went to the<\/p>\n
     spot and found the dead body of female child.                                     He drew<\/p>\n
     inquest        panchanama            (Exh.22).             It appears           that     the<\/p>\n
     child         was        raped       and        subsequently           murdered.             A<\/p>\n
     handkerchief              was       found tied around her neck.                        There<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (     4   )<\/p>\n
     were     injuries       on the person and private              part.         So,<\/p>\n
     P.I.      Bhosale lodged complaint against unknown person<\/p>\n
     for     committing rape and murder of the unknown                       female<\/p>\n
     child.         Accordingly, he registered offence punishable<\/p>\n
     under     Section 302 and 376 of the I.P.C.                   He had        also<\/p>\n
     drawn     panchanama       of place of incident.               Thereafter,<\/p>\n
     Police        Constable Indrajit Ghule and Police                  Constable<\/p>\n
     Punjaba       Thite were approached by P.W.2-Dwarkabai                       and<\/p>\n
     others,       complaining      that       Dropadabai,         daughter         of<\/p>\n
     Dwarkabai,       was missing and therefore these two Police<\/p>\n
     Constables<\/p>\n
     Hospital.<\/p>\n
\n                        \n                      took\n\n                       Dwarkabai\n                                Dwarkabai      and     relatives\n\n                                     identified the dead body.\n                                                                          to      the\n\n                                                                                  Her\n                       \n     statement was recorded.             Both these constables were in\n\n<\/pre>\n
     the police station when P.W.2-Dwarkabai and others had<\/p>\n
     approached       them.       Thereafter, present appellant                   was<\/p>\n
     arrested as Dwarkabai had disclosed that the appellant<\/p>\n
     had     taken     away     deceased Dropadabai and             since        then<\/p>\n
     Dropadabai       was     missing.      Finally,      charge-sheet            was<\/p>\n
     sent     to     the Court.     The prosecution examined in                   all<\/p>\n
     nine     witnesses.         Three     witnesses were          examined         as<\/p>\n
     Court         witnesses.      Ultimately        the     appellant            was<\/p>\n
     convicted and sentenced, and it is this order which is<\/p>\n
     challenged before this Court.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     5.        Dr.     Tukaram Gacche (P.W.3) examined at Exh.28\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n                                       (    5      )\n\n\n\n\n     had    performed        post   mortem        on        the       dead   body       of\n\n     Dropadabai.        He     found blood coming out of mouth                         and\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n     nostrils.     There were following external injuries                              to\n\n     genitals :-\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     (1)      Lacerated wound to libia minora 1\/2 cm x 1\/4th\n     cm.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     (2)     Hymen      torn, clotted blood present adherent to\n     the margin.\n\n     (3)      Vagina lacerated and congested.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     (4)     Whitish         colour       fluid       was     present         in       the\n     vagina.\n\n     (5)<\/span>\n                     \n              Anus faecal matter coming out.\n                    \n     .        There were other surface wounds, which were as\n\n     follows:-\n      \n\n\n     (1)     A continuous ligature mark around the neck\n<\/pre>\n
     horizontal in position below the thyroid cartilage 10<\/p>\n
     cm x 5 cm. Parchment line appears.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)      Fracture of hyoid bone present.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)      Echymoses present.\n\n\n\n\n\n     (4)      Carotid vessels congested.\n\n     (5)      Abrasion on chin 1 cm x 1\/2 cm.\n\n     (6)      Abrasion        on neck 1 cm x 1\/4 cm below the left\n     ear.\n\n\n\n\n\n     (7)     Abrasion on the neck 1 cm x 1\/4th cm below the\n     right ear.\n\n     (8)     Abrasion         on    right      shoulder           4    cm    x     1    cm\n     anterior aspect.\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n                                       (    6    )\n\n\n\n\n     (9)     Abrasion on             right       elbow      joint,        posterior\n     aspect 2 x 1\/2 cms.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n     (10)      Three      abrasions on right forearm 1\/2 cm x 1\/2\n     cm.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     (11)    Abrasion          on left shoulder, posterior aspect 3\n     cms x 2 cms.\n\n     (12)      Abrasion on left lumber region 5 cms x 2 cms.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n     (13)    Abrasion on the                 abdomen        just      below         the\n     umbilicus, 3 cms x 2 cms.\n\n     (14)     Abrasion on right buttocks with upper part of\n<\/pre>\n
     the thigh posterior aspect 7 cms x 3 cms, irregular in
\n     outline.\n<\/p>\n
     (15)      Abrasion on left buttock lateral aspect 8 cms.\n<\/p>\n
     (16)<\/span><\/p>\n
     x 5 cms.\n<\/p>\n
             Abrasion on left thigh posterior aspect 10 cms<\/p>\n
     (17)    Five abrasions on right leg, posterior aspect,
\n     1\/2 cms x 1\/4th cms.\n<\/p>\n
     (18)    Multiple abrasion on left leg posterior aspect
\n     1\/2 cms x 1\/4 cms.\n<\/p>\n
     6.        According        to    the Doctor injury No.                 2 to      15<\/p>\n
     were     caused     with    hard and blunt object.                   All      were<\/p>\n
     antemortem        injuries.       In his opinion cause of                   death<\/p>\n
     was     asphyxia     due    to strangulation            associated            with<\/p>\n
     rape.      The     Doctor stated that the              muddemal         article<\/p>\n
     handkerchief        was    the    one with        which       strangulation<\/p>\n
     could     have been effected.             He proved P.M.           report        at<\/p>\n
     Exh.29.      In     the cross-examination, it is brought                         on<\/p>\n
     record that on the basis of appearance of the injuries<\/p>\n
     the     Doctor     calculated        that death        could       have       been<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (      7    )<\/p>\n
     caused       within     48 hours of his examination.                   As     per<\/p>\n
     evidence       of P.W.2-Dwarkabai, deceased Dropadabai                        was<\/p>\n
     missing from 12 noon on 13.07.1998 and the post mortem<\/p>\n
     was     started on 14.07.1998 at 4.30 p.m.                   and completed<\/p>\n
     at 5.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
     7.           P.W.4-Ashok      Shinde       stated that         his     servant<\/p>\n
     Chandu       Lot told him that a female child of 7-8                        years<\/p>\n
     age     was lying dead in his field and therefore he went<\/p>\n
     to     the Police Station and informed the police.                          Along<\/p>\n
     with<\/p>\n
     was     lying.\n<\/p>\n
              police, he went to the spot where the dead<\/p>\n
                           It was in land Survey No.254 of Parbhani.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                  body<\/p>\n
     His evidence is corroborated by evidence of P.W.1-P.I.\n<\/p>\n
     Bhosale,       who     stated that P.W.4-Ashok Shinde came                      to<\/p>\n
     him     at     about     12=10 p.m.        on 14.07.1998        and      orally<\/p>\n
     informed       that     his   servant had seen a dead                 body      of<\/p>\n
     female       child     in his field.        Therefore,         he     recorded<\/p>\n
     statement        of    P.W.4-Ashok Shinde, made entry                  in     the<\/p>\n
     station       diary and proceeded to the spot.                  He saw        the<\/p>\n
     dead     body of female child.             So he called panchas               and<\/p>\n
     drew     inquest       panchanama which is proved               at     Exh.22.\n<\/p>\n
     Inquest       panchanama      clearly       shows     that      there        were<\/p>\n
     injuries       on the dead body.           The child was of 10 years<\/p>\n
     old.         There     was white handkerchief tied              around        her<\/p>\n
     neck.         There were injuries on her private part.                       P.I.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          (    8   )\n\n\n\n\n     Bhosale       further stated that, thereafter he drew                              spot\n\n     panchanama (Exh.24) and attached the handkerchief.                                    He\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     identified         handkerchief, which is a muddemal article.\n\n     The    dead body was lying in the field Survey No.254 of\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Parbhani.          P.I.        Bhosale also proved complaint lodged\n\n     by him at Exh.23.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     8.         P.W.2-Dwarkabai              is the star witness.                 She      is\n\n     examined      at      Exh.25.       She stated that Dropadabai                      was\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     her    daughter.          Dropadabai was of 8-10 years old.                         She\n\n     was    knowing\n\n     paramour      of\n                         \n                           the appellant\/accused.\n\n                           one Gangubai.          The appellant\n                                                                  The accused\n\n                                                                              had\n                                                                                         was\n\n                                                                                      taken\n                        \n     away    her     daughter on a bicycle at 12=00 noon on                              the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     pretext of giving her food and thereafter the daughter<\/p>\n
     did    not     come       back.      They     searched             the      daughter<\/p>\n
     everywhere.           She stated that Police had taken her                            to<\/p>\n
     Hospital      and showed dead body of her daughter.                              There<\/p>\n
     were    injuries          on     the dead body.           Her      daughter         was<\/p>\n
     throttled.          P.W.2-Dwarkabai identified clothes of the<\/p>\n
     deceased.           The          cross-examination                   shows         that<\/p>\n
     P.W.1-Dwarkabai           and     the     appellant were              working         in<\/p>\n
     Shaniwar      Bazar on daily wages.               Dwarkabai was knowing<\/p>\n
     the appellant by his first name.                   She was knowing that<\/p>\n
     he     resided near Khandoba Bazar in a room.                             Dwarkabai<\/p>\n
     further        said        that     since        her      husband         was       not<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (   9   )<\/p>\n
     maintaining             her,     she and her daughter               were       begging<\/p>\n
     alms.         She further stated that twice she had gone                               to<\/p>\n
     Police Station for informing police about her daughter<\/p>\n
     being        missing.           It may be noted that she is a                       woman<\/p>\n
     who     was       a     beggar, obviously an             illiterate            person.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover,          police        might      have      asked     her      to       search<\/p>\n
     daughter          before        recording       her     complaint.             Witness<\/p>\n
     further        stated          that    she was residing             in     a      public<\/p>\n
     forest, called Babul Ban, adjacent to Railway Station,<\/p>\n
     where many buggers reside in open.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           In<\/p>\n
                           the cross-examination of                P.W.2-Dwarkabai,<\/p>\n
     it    is brought on record that P.W.2-Dwarkabai and                                  one<\/p>\n
     Gangubai          used to go for work with a mason.                        There was<\/p>\n
     quarrel        between Dwarkabai and Gangubai.                        At that time<\/p>\n
     the     appellant          had taken side of Gangubai.                       Gangubai<\/p>\n
     was     working          as     a      labour      contractor.           Since        the<\/p>\n
     quarrel, Gangubai had not given any work to Dwarkabai.\n<\/p>\n
     Gangubai          had     even        beaten her with         Chappal          in     the<\/p>\n
     square.           It is admitted by Dwarkabai that she was                             on<\/p>\n
     cross        terms with Gangubai.               It was suggested that                  in<\/p>\n
     order to wreck vengeance against Gangubai, the accused<\/p>\n
     was     falsely          involved.          In our opinion, it               is      very<\/p>\n
     difficult          to believe that in such case Gangubai would<\/p>\n
     not     be     named as an accused by Dwarkabai.                           There       is<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (    10   )<\/p>\n
     nothing        on     record       to       show that       there      was      enmity<\/p>\n
     between        the appellant and P.W.2-Dwarkabai.                          Moreover,<\/p>\n
     in     that     case, Dwarkabai would not have                        allowed        her<\/p>\n
     child to be taken away by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        Learned           Trial           Judge    found         evidence           of<\/p>\n
     Dwarkabai        reliable        and we do not find any reason                         to<\/p>\n
     disbelieve          Dwarkabai.              Police    Constables             Indrajit<\/p>\n
     Ghule and Punjaba Thite examined at Exh.47 and 49 have<\/p>\n
     corroborated             statement          of P.W.2-Dwarkabai             that      her<\/p>\n
     daughter        was
\n                            ig missing       and she<\/p>\n
     complaining that her daughter was missing from earlier
\n                                                           had       approached          them<\/p>\n
     day.     Thereafter, they took Dwarkabai to the Hospital,<\/p>\n
     where the dead body was identified by Dwarkabai.\n<\/p>\n
     11.        Dwarkabai          had       admitted in          cross-examination<\/p>\n
     that     it was her mere suspicion that accused committed<\/p>\n
     the     act.        Obviously, she had seen the accused                         taking<\/p>\n
     away     her        daughter on the pretext of giving her                           food<\/p>\n
     and     since       then     her        daughter      was       missing. In          the<\/p>\n
     circumstances              she      was       bound        to       suspect          the<\/p>\n
     appellant\/accused.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     12.        If       we consider the injuries on the person                             of\n\n     Dropadabai          as     proved by Dr.Gacche, it is clear                         that\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n                                             (   11    )\n\n\n\n\n     the     child       was ravished and was subjected                     to     severe\n\n     violence.           Enmity       is a double edged            weapon.            After\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n<\/pre>\n
     giving anxious consideration to the arguments advanced<\/p>\n
     by     the     learned         advocate for the            appellant        and      on<\/p>\n
     considering              the    evidence        and    totality             of     the<\/p>\n
     circumstances,            we     are of the opinion that the                     Trial<\/p>\n
     Court has rightly believed evidence of P.W.2-Dwarkabai<\/p>\n
     that     it was the appellant who had taken away deceased<\/p>\n
     Dropadabai          on     13.07.1998 at about 12=00 noon on                       the<\/p>\n
     pretext        of giving her good and since then                       Dropadabai<\/p>\n
     was missing.\n<\/p>\n
     of
\n                           ig Evidence of Dr.         Gachhe shows that death<\/p>\n
            Dropadabai was immediately after the appellant was<\/p>\n
     last seen in the company of the deceased.                            There is no<\/p>\n
     explanation          coming          from the accused.          There is          only<\/p>\n
     denial.\n<\/p>\n
     13.           Certain      cases       are cited before us.                 In     the<\/p>\n
     case     of    Amit @ Ammu V\/s.             State of        Maharashtra,             JT<\/p>\n
     2003    (Supp.1)          SC     423,      there      was       circumstantial<\/p>\n
     evidence       against the accused.                Deceased was last seen<\/p>\n
     in     the     company of the accused by the witness.                             Dead<\/p>\n
     body     was discovered by the same witness on                           following<\/p>\n
     day.         Time    of death found near about the                     time       when<\/p>\n
     deceased       and       accused were last seen.                There       was      no<\/p>\n
     explanation          by        the    accused.        It    was      held         that<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (   12   )<\/p>\n
     circumstantial         evidence     established        guilt       of     the<\/p>\n
     accused.\n<\/p>\n
     14.        In    the    case of State of U.P.          V\/s.        Satish,<\/p>\n
     (2005) 3 S.C.C.114, in para 22 it is observed that the<\/p>\n
     last    seen     theory comes into play where the                 time-gap<\/p>\n
     between    the     point of time when the accused                 and     the<\/p>\n
     deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is<\/p>\n
     found     dead is so small that possibility of any person<\/p>\n
     other     than the accused being the author of the                     crime<\/p>\n
     becomes impossible.\n<\/p>\n
     15.       In     the    case   of State of      Goa      V\/s.        Sanjay<\/p>\n
     Thakran    and another, (2007) 3 S.C.C.755, the                    Supreme<\/p>\n
     Court after referring various cases, in para 13 and 34<\/p>\n
     observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “13.   The prosecution case is based on the
\n               circumstantial   evidence   and    it   is  a
\n               well-settled proposition of law that when the<\/p>\n
               case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
\n               evidence must satisfy the following tests:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (1)     the   circumstances from    which   an
\n               inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must
\n               be cogently and firmly established;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2)     those circumstances should be of a
\n               definite tendency unerringly pointing towards
\n               guilt of the accused;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (3)          the circumstances, taken cumulatively,
\n               should       form a chain so complete that there is<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                      (   13   )<\/p>\n
      no escape from the conclusion that within all
\n      human probability the crime was committed by
\n      the accused and none else; and<\/p>\n
      (4)     the circumstantial evidence in order
\n      to sustain conviction must be complete and
\n      incapable   of   explanation of    any   other<\/p>\n
      hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
\n      accused and such evidence should not only be
\n      consistent with the guilt of the accused but
\n      should be inconsistent with his innocence.\n<\/p>\n
      (See State of U.P. v. Satish, Padala Veera
\n      Reddy<\/a> v.    State of A.P., Sharad Birdhichand
\n      Sarda v.    State of Maharashtra, Gambhir<\/a> v.
\n      State of Maharashtra, SCC p.355, para 9 and
\n      Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P.).\n<\/p>\n
      …………\n<\/p>\n
      …………\n<\/p>\n
      34.
\n            igFrom the principle laid down by this
\n      Court, the circumstance of last seen together
\n      would normally be taken into consideration for<\/p>\n
      finding the accused guilty of the offence
\n      charged with when it is established by the
\n      prosecution that the time gap between the
\n      point of time when      the accused and the
\n      deceased were found together alive and when
\n      the deceased was found dead is so small that<\/p>\n
      possibility of any other person being with the
\n      deceased could completely be ruled out.    The<\/p>\n
      time gap between the accused persons seen in
\n      the company of the deceased and the detection
\n      of the crime would be a material consideration
\n      for appreciation of the evidence and placing
\n      reliance on it as a circumstance against the<\/p>\n
      accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said
\n      that the evidence of last seen together is to
\n      be rejected merely because      the time gap
\n      between the accused persons and the deceased
\n      last seen together and the crime coming to
\n      light is after a considerable long duration.
\n      There can be no fixed or straitjacket formula<\/p>\n
      for the duration of time gap in this regard
\n      and it would depend upon the evidence led by
\n      the prosecution to remove the possibility of
\n      any other person meeting the deceased in the
\n      intervening period, that is to say, if the
\n      prosecution is able to lead such an evidence<\/p>\n
                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (     14   )<\/p>\n
               that likelihood of any person other than the
\n               accused, being the author      of the crime,
\n               becomes impossible, then     the evidence of
\n               circumstance of last seen together, although<\/p>\n
               there is long duration of time, can         be
\n               considered as one of the circumstances in the
\n               chain of circumstances to prove the guilt<\/p>\n
               against such accused persons. Hence, if the
\n               prosecution proves that in the light of the
\n               facts and circumstances of the case, there was
\n               no possibility of any other person meeting or
\n               approaching the deceased at the place of<\/p>\n
               incident or before the commission of the
\n               crime, in the intervening period, the proof of
\n               last seen together would be relevant evidence.
\n               For instance, if it can be demonstrated by
\n               showing that the accused persons were in
\n               exclusive possession of the place where the<\/p>\n
               incident occurred or where they were last seen
\n               together with the deceased, and there was no<\/p>\n
               possibility of any intrusion to that place by
\n               any third party, then a relatively wider time
\n               gap would not affect the prosecution case.”\n<\/p>\n
     16.       For      all above-said reasons, we agree with the<\/p>\n
     conclusion       of     the   Trial    Court    that       circumstances<\/p>\n
     proved as against the appellant are sufficient to base<\/p>\n
     conviction for offences punishable under Sections 363,<\/p>\n
     376 and 302 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     17.       Now      coming back to the question of                 sentence,<\/p>\n
     the    learned        Judge   has convicted       the      appellant          of<\/p>\n
     offence     punishable        under Section 302 of            the      I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     and    sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
     Indian     Penal       Code does not recognize any              punishment<\/p>\n
     called     “simple      imprisonment for life”.              It is       clear<\/p>\n
     that     there     is no term like “simple imprisonment                     for<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (   15   )<\/p>\n
     life” or “rigorous imprisonment for life”.                    Section 53<\/p>\n
     is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “53.   Punishments.-The punishments to which<\/p>\n
                  offenders are liable under the provisions of
\n                  this Code are-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  First.-Death;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Secondly.-Imprisonment for life;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Fourthly.-Imprisonment, which is of two
\n                  descriptions, namely:- (1) Rigorous, that is,
\n                  with hard labour;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (2) Simple;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Fifthly.-Forfeiture of property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Sixthly.-Fine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .            Section 302 of the I.P.C. is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “302. Punishment for murder,- Whoever commits
\n                  murder shall be punished     with death, or
\n                  imprisonment for life, and shall also be
\n                  liable to fine.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .            So, there is nothing like “simple imprisonment<\/p>\n
     for     life”     and we hold that it is mere error                on     the<\/p>\n
     part     of     the Judge, which we can rectify and                correct<\/p>\n
     under        Section 386 of the Cr.P.C., as thereby we would<\/p>\n
     not     be     enhancing     punishment,     but     only         altering<\/p>\n
     nomenclature of the sentence maintaining the sentence.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     18.          Position   of    law was made clear long back                  in\n\n     the     case of Naib Singh s\/o.          Makhan Singh V\/s.             State\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n                                          (    16     )\n\n\n\n\n     of     Punjab    and others, (1983) 2 S.C.C.454.                          In     that\n\n     case    the     Supreme       Court      has        made     it     clear           that\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     \"imprisonment         for life\" means \"rigorous                    imprisonment\n\n     for     life\".         The    Supreme          Court       dealt      with           the\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     provisions       of Prison Act, jail manual, provisions                              of\n\n     the    I.P.C.,        amendment to the I.P.C.                carried out             by\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n<\/pre>\n
     Amending Act 26 of 1955.                At the end of Para 14, it is<\/p>\n
     observed that:-\n<\/p>\n
               “In our view the legislative intent has been
\n               clearly spelt out and expressed that the<\/p>\n
               nature of punishment required to be suffered
\n               under a sentence of “imprisonment for life”
\n               awardable on and after     January, 1956 is
\n               rigorous imprisonment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .         At     the beginning of para 16 it is pointed out<\/p>\n
     that    even     thereafter there is no dearth of                         judicial<\/p>\n
     precedents        where,       in     the      matter        of     nature            of<\/p>\n
     punishment, imprisonment for life has been regarded as<\/p>\n
     equivalent       to    rigorous imprisonment for                    life.           The<\/p>\n
     Supreme       Court    also considered case of State of                          M.P.\n<\/p>\n
     v.      Ahmodulla,           K.M.       Nanavati           v.         State          of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra.          We     may    quote      para 17,          which         is    as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “17.   During the hearing our attention was
\n               invited to a decision of the Kerala High Court
\n               in Mathammal Saraswathi v. State of Kerala,
\n               where that High Court has taken the view that<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                     (    17   )<\/p>\n
               while passing the sentence of imprisonment for
\n               life a criminal court should keep in view the
\n               provisions of Section 60 of the I.P.C.     and
\n               choose one or the other form so as to clarify<\/p>\n
               exact nature of punishment intended to be
\n               inflicted on the accused, and went on to
\n               clarify the position by stating that the<\/p>\n
               imprisonment for life in that case shall be
\n               simple imprisonment and not rigorous. It is
\n               not possible to sustain the aforesaid view of
\n               the Kerala High Court. In the first place, a
\n               distinction between “imprisonment for life”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               and   imprisonment   for a term” has      been
\n               maintained in the Penal Code in several of its
\n               provisions.   Secondly, by    its very terms
\n               Section 60 is applicable to a case where “an
\n               offender is punishable with imprisonment which
\n               may be either description” and it is only in<\/p>\n
               such case that it is competent for the Court
\n               to direct that “such imprisonment shall be<\/p>\n
               either wholly rigorous or wholly simple or
\n               that any part of such imprisonment shall be
\n               rigorous and the rest simple”. And it is
\n               clear that whenever an offender is punishable<\/p>\n
               with “imprisonment for life”      he is    not
\n               punishable with “imprisonment which may be of
\n               either description”, in other words Section 60
\n               would be inapplicable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .         So,     position     of      law   regarding         punishment<\/p>\n
     involving       any   sentence of imprisonment for                 life      is<\/p>\n
     well settled and we accordingly propose to clarify for<\/p>\n
     the benefit of jail authorities.\n<\/p>\n
     19.       We     wonder,     whether     there should          have       been<\/p>\n
     charge    under Section 363 of the I.P.C.                   particularly<\/p>\n
     when     kidnapping is with rape and murder.                 At the time<\/p>\n
     of     charge there could have been consideration whether<\/p>\n
     framing     of charge under Section 364 and 363-A of                       the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (    18    )<\/p>\n
     I.P.C.        was more advisable than under Section 363                                      of<\/p>\n
     the I.P.C.          Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n
     20.         We      are     unable             to     understand            why       simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonment          of        seven years was awarded for each                             of<\/p>\n
     the     offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of<\/p>\n
     the I.P.C.          In this case it was a rape on a minor girl<\/p>\n
     of     10    years who was kidnapped, raped                             and       murdered.\n<\/p>\n
     There       was     no     justification                  for      awarding           simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonments             for     offence punishable under                         Sections<\/p>\n
     363<\/span><\/p>\n
     is<\/p>\n
             and 376 of the I.P.C.                       Offence under Section<\/p>\n
            punishable with imprisonment of either description
\n                                                                                                363<\/span><\/p>\n
     which       may     extend        to seven years.                  If     a    person        is<\/p>\n
     sentenced to seven years, it is difficult to know what<\/p>\n
     purpose           would         be     served          by          awarding           simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonment.              That       would          not do any           good      to     the<\/p>\n
     convict       or     to     the society.               There was no               point      in<\/p>\n
     keeping       him        idle        for       such       a     long      period.          The<\/p>\n
     appellant         is a young healthy man of 35 years age                                   and<\/p>\n
     his     services could have been utilised for                                  beneficial<\/p>\n
     purpose,          such as by giving him training of some craft<\/p>\n
     or     trade,       so that he could become a skilled                               worker.\n<\/p>\n
     Even     assuming          that the appellant was a labourer                               and<\/p>\n
     could not have learnt any craft or trade, his time and<\/p>\n
     energy       could have been better utilised in some                                    work.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    (     19    )\n\n\n\n\n     That     would keep him physically and mentally fit.                         The\n\n     distinction      between simple imprisonment and                     rigorous\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n     imprisonment      and    their effect do not appear to                      have\n\n     been     properly understood.        Both have significance not\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     only     from    the    point of society, but also                 from      the\n\n     point      of     convict.     In         our        opinion,           simple\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     imprisonments      awarded for offence under Sections                        363\n\n     and 376 of the I.P.C.        are totally unjustified.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     21.       Not    only the award of simple imprisonment was\n\n\n\n             I.P.C.\n                       \n<\/pre>\n
     unjustified but so far as offence under Section 376 of<\/p>\n
     the               is concerned, it is illegal.                 Section 376<\/p>\n
     (1),     (2) (f) of the I.P.C.           and proviso below it                are<\/p>\n
     as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “376.    Punishment for rape – (1) Whoever,
\n               except    in    the cases    provided   for   by<\/p>\n
               sub-section     (2), commits    rape shall    be
\n               punished     with   imprisonment     of   either
\n               description for a term which shall not be less
\n               than seven years, but which may be for life,
\n               or for a term which may extent to ten years,<\/p>\n
               and shall also be liable to fine unless the
\n               women raped is his own wife and is not under
\n               twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall
\n               be    punished with    imprisonment of either
\n               description for a term which may extend to two
\n               years or with fine or with both;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Provided that the court may, for adequate and
\n               special reasons to be      mentioned in   the
\n               judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment
\n               for a term of less than seven years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2) Whoever, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       (    20   )\n\n\n\n\n                ..............\n                ..............\n<\/pre>\n
                (f) commits rape on a woman when she is under
\n                twelve years of age; or<\/p>\n
                …………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
                for a term which shall not be less than ten
\n                years but which may be for life and shall also
\n                be liable to fine:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Provided that the Court may, for adequate and<\/p>\n
                special reasons to be      mentioned in    the
\n                judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of
\n                either description for a term of less than ten
\n                years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     22.        The<\/p>\n
                          appellant has committed offence which<\/p>\n
     punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C.in the
\n                                                                                   is<\/p>\n
     present       case     and the learned Judge should               not      have<\/p>\n
     awarded       punishment lesser than rigorous                imprisonment<\/p>\n
     for     ten years without recording adequate and                     special<\/p>\n
     reasons.         In this case after coming to the conclusion<\/p>\n
     that     guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable<\/p>\n
     doubt, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded<\/p>\n
     to     hear    the accused on sentence and             made       following<\/p>\n
     observations in para 54 and 55 of his judgment:-\n<\/p>\n
                “54.   Heard the accused on the point of
\n                sentence.   He still claims that he has not<\/p>\n
                done anything.   Heard   Shri S.N.   Shinde,
\n                learned counsel for the accused. He argued
\n                that lenient view be     taken against   the
\n                accused.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n                55.         Accused       has committed tripple offence\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n                                            (    21    )\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                   i.e.   kidnapping, rape and murder. In this
\n                   view of the matter, the following order is
\n                   passed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .             Thus,    no    adequate           and special        reasons        are<\/p>\n
     given     for awarding simple imprisonment that too for a<\/p>\n
     period less than 10 years for offence punishable under<\/p>\n
     Section        376     of the I.P.C.            So, the order         passed        is<\/p>\n
     illegal.         Here we may refer to the case of Md.                           Kalam<\/p>\n
     v.     State of Bihar,<\/a> 2008 AIR SCW 4269.                      It is observed<\/p>\n
     is     para     3 that since the age of the victim                        was     six<\/p>\n
     years     at     the     time    of       incident,       the       appropriate<\/p>\n
     conviction<\/p>\n
                       would have been under Section 376 (2) (f),<\/p>\n
     IPC if conviction would have been for rape.\n<\/p>\n
     23.        In     this      case,     the       learned      Judge        did     not<\/p>\n
     consider totality of the circumstances before deciding<\/p>\n
     to award seven years simple imprisonment.                           Though main<\/p>\n
     punishment        is     for offence under Section 302                     of     the<\/p>\n
     I.P.C.         for     imprisonment         for         life,      still,         the<\/p>\n
     ignorance        and     carelessness           shown      by      the     learned<\/p>\n
     Additional        Sessions      Judge,          compel       this       Court       to<\/p>\n
     observe        that    Section      235     (2) or        248      (2)     of     the<\/p>\n
     Cr.P.C., which require Sessions Judge or Magistrate to<\/p>\n
     hear     accused on quantum of sentence and then to                              pass<\/p>\n
     sentence        according to law, are not empty formalities.\n<\/p>\n
     Circumstances which lead the Judge to award particular<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (    22    )<\/p>\n
     description          of     imprisonment, namely,             rigorous         i.e.<\/p>\n
     with hard labour or simple, should be guided by proper<\/p>\n
     reasons.           There     should     be     circumspection            of     all<\/p>\n
     relevant           factors.       The    Judge          may       take         into<\/p>\n
     consideration             different theories of punishment, their<\/p>\n
     aims     and       criticism against each,            consider          relevant<\/p>\n
     facts        of the case before it, such as, age, education,<\/p>\n
     other background of the accused, the effect of offence<\/p>\n
     on     the     victim, his\/her family and society                     and      then<\/p>\n
     determine          the sentence, keeping in mind provisions of<\/p>\n
     law.         The<\/p>\n
                          theories    of     the    punishment<\/p>\n
     respective merits and demerits should be borne in mind
\n                                                                       with        their<\/p>\n
     and     the        appropriate    punishment be          decided.            There<\/p>\n
     should        be integrated approach.             Particularly           heinous<\/p>\n
     crimes        like rape on child or kidnapping of child                         for<\/p>\n
     ransom        or other objects have to be viewed from                        their<\/p>\n
     effect on the society, law and order and public order.\n<\/p>\n
     There is also element of social desire for retribution<\/p>\n
     arising out of indignation for such inhuman crime.\n<\/p>\n
     24.          The     Supreme     Court       recently in the            case      of<\/p>\n
     Bantu     V\/s.         State     of U.P., 2008 AIR SCW              6401,       has<\/p>\n
     observed in paras 22, 28 and 30, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “22.   The        law regulates social interests,
\n                  arbitrates        conflicting claims and demands.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                       (   23   )<\/p>\n
      Security of persons and property of the people
\n      is an essential function of the State.        It
\n      could be achieved through instrumentality of
\n      criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross<\/p>\n
      cultural conflict where living law must find
\n      answer to the new challenges and the Courts
\n      are required to mould the sentencing system to<\/p>\n
      meet    the challenges.      The contagion    of
\n      lawlessness would undermine social order and
\n      lay it in ruins. Protection of society and
\n      stamping out criminal proclivity must be the
\n      object of law which must be achieved by<\/p>\n
      imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law
\n      as a cornerstone of the edifice of “order”
\n      should meet the challenges confronting the
\n      society.    Friedman in his “Law in Changing
\n      Society” stated that, “State of criminal law
\n      continues to be — as it should be — a<\/p>\n
      decisive reflection of social consciousness of
\n      society”.     Therefore, in      operating   the<\/p>\n
      on<\/p>\n
      sentencing    system, law<\/p>\n
            factual matrix.     By
\n                                    should adopt the
\n      corrective machinery or the deterrence based
\n                                     deft   modulation
\n      sentencing process be stern where it should<\/p>\n
      be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants
\n      to be. The facts and given circumstances in
\n      each case, the nature of the crime, the manner
\n      in which it was planned and committed, the
\n      motive for commission of        the crime, the
\n      conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons<\/p>\n
      used and all other attending circumstances are
\n      relevant facts which would enter into the area<\/p>\n
      of consideration.     For    instance a murder
\n      committed    due to    deep-seated mutual and
\n      personal rivalry may not call for penalty of
\n      death. But an organised crime or mass murders
\n      of innocent people would call for imposition<\/p>\n
      of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh v.
\n      M.P.    (1987) 2 SCR 710), this Court while
\n      refusing to reduce the death sentence observed
\n      thus:\n<\/p>\n
      ‘It will be a mockery of justice to permit the
\n      accused to escape the extreme penalty of law<\/p>\n
      when faced with such evidence and such cruel
\n      acts.   To give the lesser punishment for the
\n      accused would be to render the justicing
\n      system of the country suspect. The common man
\n      will lose faith in Courts. In such cases, he
\n      understands and appreciates the language of<\/p>\n
                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                          (   24   )<\/p>\n
         deterrence more than the reformative jargon.'”\n<\/p>\n
         28.      Imposition  of    sentence    without
\n         considering its effect on the social order in<\/p>\n
         many   cases may be in reality a        futile
\n         exercise.    The social impact of the crime,
\n         e.g.   where it relates to offences against<\/p>\n
         women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation
\n         of public money, treason and other offences
\n         involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency
\n         which have great impact on social order, and
\n         public interest, cannot lost sight of and per<\/p>\n
         se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal
\n         attitude by imposing     meagre sentences or
\n         taking too sympathetic view merely on account
\n         of lapse of time in respect of such offences
\n         will be result-wise counter-productive in the
\n         long run and against societal interest which<\/p>\n
         needs to be cared for and strengthened by
\n         string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing<\/p>\n
         30.<\/p>\n
         system.”\n<\/p>\n
                 Similar view has also been expressed in
\n         Ravji v.      State of Rajasthan (1996 (2) SCC<\/p>\n
         175).     It has been held in the said case that
\n         it is the nature and gravity of the crime but
\n         not the criminal, which        are germane for
\n         consideration of appropriate punishment in a
\n         criminal trial. The Court will be failing in
\n         its duty if appropriate punishment is not<\/p>\n
         awarded for a crime which has been committed
\n         not only against the individual victim but<\/p>\n
         also against the society to which the criminal
\n         and victim belong.       The punishment to be
\n         awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but
\n         it should conform to and be consistent with
\n         the atrocity and brutality with which the<\/p>\n
         crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of
\n         the crime warranting public abhorrence and it
\n         should “respond to the society’s cry for
\n         justice     against the    criminal”.   If   for
\n         extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated
\n         in    a    very brutal    manner   without   any
\n         provocation, must deterrent punishment is not<\/p>\n
         given, the case of deterrent punishment will
\n         lose its relevance.”\n<\/p>\n
     .   We have quoted only few paragraphs as they are<\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (    25    )<\/p>\n
     closely applicable to the facts of case in hand though<\/p>\n
     entire        judgment        deserves to be read.               In     that       case<\/p>\n
     also     the        victim     aged       five       years     was      raped       and<\/p>\n
     murdered.            The     murder was committed in a                  diabolical<\/p>\n
     manner.\n<\/p>\n
     25.          In      view of above, we express our                    displeasure<\/p>\n
     for     the manner in which the simple imprisonments were<\/p>\n
     awarded           for offence punishable under Sections 363 and<\/p>\n
     376     of        the I.P.C.     We are also dissatisfied for                       not<\/p>\n
     following<\/p>\n
                        directions     of law as contained in<\/p>\n
     376 (2) of the I.P.C., which are reproduced earlier.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                  Section<\/p>\n
     26.          At      the same time we record our caution to all<\/p>\n
     Sessions            Judges,     Additional           Sessions         Judges        and<\/p>\n
     Assistant          Judges to be careful while considering                           the<\/p>\n
     quantum           of sentence in heinous crimes, such as one in<\/p>\n
     the present case.             We also draw their attention to the<\/p>\n
     observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bantu<\/p>\n
     (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
     27.          In      the result, the appeal is dismissed.                           The<\/p>\n
     order        of     conviction and sentence is maintained                          with<\/p>\n
     clarification           that since there is no punishment                          like<\/p>\n
     ‘simple           imprisonment    for life’ contemplated                     by     the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                   (   26   )<\/p>\n
     Indian      Penal    Code and it is mere error committed                 by<\/p>\n
     the Trial Court to describe “imprisonment for life” as<\/p>\n
     “simple imprisonment for life”, the punishment awarded<\/p>\n
     to    the     appellant be considered as       imprisonment            for<\/p>\n
     life as it is understood in law.\n<\/p>\n
     28.         Adv.    Shri Suresh Munde has appeared as amicus<\/p>\n
     curae       for the appellant.   We quantify his fees at Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     3000\/- (Rupees Three Thousand).<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     [P.R. BORKAR,J.]\n                          ig                      [P.V. HARDAS,J.]\n                        \n     snk\/2008\/NOV08\/crap17.07\n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:33 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008 Bench: P.V. Hardas, P. R. Borkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2007 Balaji s\/o. Gangaram Navghare ]..Appellant Age. 35 years, Occ. Nil, R\/o. At post Malvata, Tq. Basmat, Dist. Parbhani presently […]<\/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-168197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 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\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-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=\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-11T01:27:40+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T01:27:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4833,\"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\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T01:27:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 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":"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 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\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-11T01:27:40+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T01:27:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008"},"wordCount":4833,"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\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008","name":"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T01:27:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 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\/168197","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=168197"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168197\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}