{"id":190801,"date":"2010-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-12T00:02:44","modified_gmt":"2015-04-11T18:32:44","slug":"balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1978 OF 2008\n\n\nBalraje @ Trimbak                        .... Appellant(s)\n\n\n         Versus\n\n\nState of Maharashtra                    .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and<\/p>\n
order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of<\/p>\n
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No. 310 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed<\/p>\n
the appeal of the appellant confirming his conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Beed in<\/p>\n
Sessions Case No. 131 of 1996 on 11.09.1997.<\/p>\n
                                                             1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2)   The case of the prosecution is as under:\n<\/p>\n
a)   The deceased-Kailas was residing in Bedre Galli at<\/p>\n
Georai along with his family.     The house of appellant-<\/p>\n
accused is opposite to the house of the deceased. There<\/p>\n
was enmity between the family of the appellant-accused<\/p>\n
and the family of the deceased. It is said that they were<\/p>\n
on inimical terms with each other.      On 21.07.1996, at<\/p>\n
about 11.30 p.m., when Kailas was sleeping in the front<\/p>\n
room of his house, his wife Kausalyabai (PW-2) and their<\/p>\n
children were sleeping in the rear side of the room, Balraje<\/p>\n
– the appellant had called the deceased to open the door.<\/p>\n
On hearing the noise of opening the door by Kailas, his<\/p>\n
wife followed him. When Kailas opened the door, Balraje<\/p>\n
pulled him out by holding his banian, as a result the<\/p>\n
banian was torn and came into the hands of Balraje which<\/p>\n
he threw away and then he gave a knife blow on the chest<\/p>\n
of Kailas.   Thereafter, Kailas started running towards<\/p>\n
upstairs and called Rameshwar Burande (PW-1), who was<\/p>\n
residing on the first floor of the building. On hearing the<\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span>
\ncommotion, Rameshwar (PW-1) started coming down.<\/p>\n
Balraje inflicted a knife blow on the leg of PW-1 and made<\/p>\n
him to fall on the ground.        Sherya Mote (A-4) also<\/p>\n
inflicted blow on the chest of Kailas and he was thrown on<\/p>\n
the ground from the steps. The other three persons beat<\/p>\n
Kailas with wooden pieces.     On hearing shouts, people<\/p>\n
gathered and the appellant along with three persons ran<\/p>\n
away in a jeep which was brought by them.              The<\/p>\n
neighbours had taken Kailas and Rameshwar (PW-1) to<\/p>\n
the hospital at Georai in a Auto Rickshaw. Dr. Talwadkar,<\/p>\n
(PW-17), after giving first aid, referred them to the Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital at Beed as he found that the condition of the<\/p>\n
injured was critical. Then they were carried to the Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Beed in a jeep. Kailas died in the Civil Hospital<\/p>\n
between 3.00 to 3.30 a.m<\/p>\n
b)   The complaint of PW-1 was recorded in the Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Beed which is Ex. 35. On the basis of the said<\/p>\n
complaint, FIR was registered with the Police Station,<\/p>\n
Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148<\/p>\n
                                                          3<\/span>
\nand 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
The said complaint was then forwarded to the Police<\/p>\n
Station, Georai.      P.I. Kendre, PW-19, had received the<\/p>\n
complaint     filed   by   PW-1   at   about   9.30   a.m.   on<\/p>\n
22.07.1997.     On the basis of the said complaint, P.S.I.<\/p>\n
Gajare registered Crime No. 132\/96 and handed over the<\/p>\n
investigation to P.I. Kendre (PW-19). PW-19 went to the<\/p>\n
place of incident and had drawn a panchnama of place of<\/p>\n
offence (Ex.54).      During the Panchanama, he noticed<\/p>\n
blood stained mattress, pillow, bed sheet, torn piece of<\/p>\n
banian, one chappal and a piece of wood were lying on the<\/p>\n
spot. He then went to the house of Balraje – the appellant<\/p>\n
herein in his search but he was not there. During his visit<\/p>\n
to the house, he found that one jeep was parked in the<\/p>\n
premises and there were blood stains in the jeep. He then<\/p>\n
attached the said jeep under panchanama as Ex.55. In<\/p>\n
the said jeep, he found a piece of plank used in the<\/p>\n
assault and one slipper.      He had also seized a piece of<\/p>\n
stepney and pieces of seat covers which were stained with<\/p>\n
                                                              4<\/span>
\nblood in order to send it to the chemical analyzer.<\/p>\n
c)   Initially the crime was registered for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC but later on it<\/p>\n
was converted to Section 302 of the IPC.    After the death<\/p>\n
of Kailas, the panchanama of the inquest of the dead body<\/p>\n
was prepared which was filed as Ex.29. The clothes which<\/p>\n
were on the dead body were seized and placed as Ex.30.<\/p>\n
The postmortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr.<\/p>\n
Sudam Mogale (PW-3).       The clothes of PW-1 were also<\/p>\n
seized. On 25.07.1996, Balraje – the appellant herein and<\/p>\n
Suresh Mote A-2 were arrested while they were traveling<\/p>\n
in a car.      The said car was also attached under<\/p>\n
panchanama Ex. 43. The Investigating Officer found one<\/p>\n
receipt of Hotel Manor, Aurangabad from the car which<\/p>\n
shows that accused had stayed in the said hotel in the<\/p>\n
night   of   22.07.1996.    On   26.07.1996,    during   the<\/p>\n
interrogation, the appellant made a statement that the<\/p>\n
weapon used by him in the assault was concealed by him<\/p>\n
at a particular place and he would take it out if the panch<\/p>\n
                                                           5<\/span>
\nwitnesses and police accompany him.          Thereafter, they<\/p>\n
went in a police jeep and the appellant took out one knife<\/p>\n
which was kept beneath Ashoka tree. There were blood<\/p>\n
stains   on   the    said   knife.   On   31.07.1996,   police<\/p>\n
interrogated Kailas (A-4) also and during the said<\/p>\n
interrogation he made a statement that he concealed the<\/p>\n
knife in the field. Thereafter, the police got the knife from<\/p>\n
that place.    On 05.08.1996, P.I. Kendre (PW-19) then<\/p>\n
requested the Naib Tehsildar         for preparing the sketch<\/p>\n
map of the place of incident and the map was prepared<\/p>\n
which is filed as Ex.61.\n<\/p>\n
d)   On 13.02.1997, charges were framed against the<\/p>\n
accused persons for the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
The prosecution had examined 19 witnesses and recorded<\/p>\n
their evidence.     The Sessions Judge, Beed, by order dated<\/p>\n
11.09.1997 convicted the appellant and three other<\/p>\n
accused, namely, Suresh Mote, Dutta Kale and Kailas @<\/p>\n
Shreya Bhagwan Mote guilty for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
                                                             6<\/span>
\nunder Section 302\/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- each,<\/p>\n
in default, to undergo R.I. for one month under Section<\/p>\n
235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
e)    Challenging   the   said   judgment       and   order     of<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence, the appellant and the other three<\/p>\n
accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1997 before the<\/p>\n
High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
and order dated 17.04.2008 dismissed the appeal in<\/p>\n
respect of appellant thereby confirming the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence of the appellant and         allowed the appeal in<\/p>\n
respect of the other three accused acquitting them from<\/p>\n
the   charge   of   offence   under   Section    302\/34       IPC.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed<\/p>\n
this appeal by way of special leave petition before this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
3)    Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant and Mr. Sankar Chillarge, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                                 7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
4)   Learned senior counsel for the appellant after taking us<\/p>\n
through all the relevant materials contended that the High<\/p>\n
Court has committed an error in upholding the conviction of<\/p>\n
the appellant when on the same set of evidence the other<\/p>\n
accused were acquitted by the High Court. He also submitted<\/p>\n
that when the alleged eye-witnesses Rameshwar Burandi,<\/p>\n
(complainant) PW-1 and Rekha Gire PW-4 narrated about the<\/p>\n
prosecution story, the High Court having disbelieved their<\/p>\n
version in respect of others, erroneously relied the same in the<\/p>\n
case of the appellant while upholding the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence. He further pointed out that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4<\/p>\n
are not eye-witnesses considering the spot panchnama.        He<\/p>\n
also submitted that in view of material contradiction and<\/p>\n
omissions in the alleged prosecution witnesses, the Courts<\/p>\n
below are not justified in confirming the conviction of the<\/p>\n
sentence of the appellant alone. On the other hand, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the respondent-State by taking us<\/p>\n
through the prosecution witnesses and documents submitted<\/p>\n
that the Courts below were justified in relying on the evidence<\/p>\n
of Rekha Gire (PW-4), Raghunath (PW-12), and Bharat (PW-10)<\/p>\n
                                                               8<\/span>
\nwho are residing in the adjacent houses in addition to PW-1 &<\/p>\n
PW-2, eye witnesses.     He further pointed out that certain<\/p>\n
discrepancies even, if any, are minimal and it had not affected<\/p>\n
the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
5)   We have perused the relevant materials and considered<\/p>\n
the rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
6)   Among the witnesses examined on the side of the<\/p>\n
prosecution, Rameshwar Burande (PW-1), son of the deceased,<\/p>\n
Kausalyabai (PW-2) and Rekha Gire (PW-4) are material eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses proving the involvement of the appellant. According<\/p>\n
to PW-1, on the fateful night between 11:30 to 12:00, on<\/p>\n
hearing cries of PW-2, he woke up and noticed the appellant-<\/p>\n
Balraje dragging Kailas from the house and inflicted blow with<\/p>\n
knife on the abdomen.     He also explained that in order to<\/p>\n
escape from the accused, he started running towards upstairs.<\/p>\n
In order to help the deceased while he was climbing down the<\/p>\n
staircase, two persons pulled him down by holding his legs<\/p>\n
and gave one blow with some sharp weapon on his legs, as a<\/p>\n
result, he fell injured at the bottom of the staircase.    The<\/p>\n
presence of Rameshwar Burande (PW-1) at the place of<\/p>\n
                                                              9<\/span>
\nincident cannot be disbelieved. Added to it, he also sustained<\/p>\n
injuries in the incident.\n<\/p>\n
7) One Raghunath Bedre, step-brother of the deceased Kailas<\/p>\n
and neighbor was examined as PW-12. He explained that the<\/p>\n
father and grand-father of the appellant were residing in the<\/p>\n
opposite house till 1990. He further deposed that on the date<\/p>\n
of the incident, he heard cries around 11:30 p.m. and<\/p>\n
immediately he woke up. He opened the door of his house and<\/p>\n
came out and saw the appellant and three others standing on<\/p>\n
the road holding knives and sticks in their hands.<\/p>\n
8) According to Kausalyabai (PW-2), she was at the house at<\/p>\n
the relevant time with her husband and at about 11.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
when they were asleep there was a call from outside, “Kailas<\/p>\n
open the door” and, thereafter, Kailas went and opened the<\/p>\n
door and she followed him. At that time, the accused asked<\/p>\n
him to come out, but Kailas was not ready and, therefore,<\/p>\n
accused caught hold of baniyan of Kailas and dragged him out<\/p>\n
of the house and inflicted blow with knife on the abdomen.<\/p>\n
She also explained that in order to escape from the accused<\/p>\n
her husband started running towards upper storey by the<\/p>\n
                                                            10<\/span>
\nstaircase and called PW-1 for help and while he (PW-1) was<\/p>\n
climbing down the staircase to help the deceased, two persons<\/p>\n
pulled him down by holding his legs and gave one blow on his<\/p>\n
legs, as a result, he fell injured at the bottom of the staircase.<\/p>\n
9)   The evidence of PW-2 is supported by the evidence of<\/p>\n
Rekha Gire (PW-4). In her evidence, PW-4 explained that she<\/p>\n
was residing with her husband Dilip Dire in the house<\/p>\n
adjacent to the house of the deceased. She asserted that she<\/p>\n
knew the appellant since childhood. According to her, on the<\/p>\n
night, since her husband had gone to his native place while<\/p>\n
she was sleeping, she heard a noise of jeep at about 11:00-<\/p>\n
11:30 p.m. and she opened the door on the belief that her<\/p>\n
husband had arrived. But, appellant and four others alighted<\/p>\n
from the jeep, entered the house of the deceased and asked<\/p>\n
him to open the door. She further narrated that the appellant<\/p>\n
pulled out the deceased by holding his baniyan and stabbed<\/p>\n
Kailas, the deceased, with knife. Kailas was running towards<\/p>\n
upstairs by calling Rameshwar Burande PW-1.           She further<\/p>\n
explained that though other four accused also ran along with<\/p>\n
the appellant, it was appellant-Balaraje who inflicted one more<\/p>\n
                                                                 11<\/span>
\nknife blow on the person of Kailas while he was lying on the<\/p>\n
ground and thereafter, all the assailants went away in the<\/p>\n
jeep. Moreover, Rekha Gire (PW-4), among the persons who<\/p>\n
alighted from the jeep, identified only the appellant. She also<\/p>\n
explained how the deceased being thrown on the ground while<\/p>\n
he was trying to climb the staircase, appellant giving blow with<\/p>\n
knife on the abdomen and the other accused giving blow with<\/p>\n
knife on the chest.\n<\/p>\n
10) The analysis of evidences of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 clearly<\/p>\n
prove the involvement of the appellant-Balraje. Though some<\/p>\n
of the witnesses turned hostile it had not affected the<\/p>\n
prosecution   case    because   of   the   clear   and   categorical<\/p>\n
statements of PWs 1, 2 and 4. Since all the three identified<\/p>\n
the appellant and his name find place in the First Information<\/p>\n
Report itself lodged by PW-1, the High Court has rightly<\/p>\n
confirmed his conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
11) It is true that the prosecution has implicated four persons<\/p>\n
in the commission of offence. The material witnesses PW-1,<\/p>\n
PW-2 and PW-4 specifically asserted and identified the role of<\/p>\n
the appellant alone. Taking note of the fact that his name was<\/p>\n
                                                                  12<\/span>
\nmentioned in the earliest report i.e. FIR and evidence of PW-1,<\/p>\n
PW-2 and PW-4, we are of the view that the High Court is fully<\/p>\n
justified in accepting the case of the prosecution in so far as<\/p>\n
the appellant is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
12)   Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
submitted that in view of the fact that there was only one<\/p>\n
injury on the deceased alleged to have been caused by the<\/p>\n
appellant, the Court is not justified in convicting and<\/p>\n
sentencing him under Section 302. In other words, according<\/p>\n
to him, even if the prosecution case is accepted, conviction<\/p>\n
and proper sentence would be only under Section 325 for<\/p>\n
which he relied on decision of this Court Baul vs. State of<\/p>\n
U.P.<\/a> reported in 1968 (2) SCR 450.       On the other hand,<\/p>\n
Mr. Sankar Chillarge, learned counsel for the State submitted<\/p>\n
that in view of categorical statements of PWs-1, 2, 4 and 11<\/p>\n
coupled with the post-mortem report, conviction under Section<\/p>\n
302 is appropriate and sentence awarded is maintainable for<\/p>\n
which he relied on Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors.<\/p>\n
vs. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 and Dinesh Kumar vs.<\/p>\n
State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270. As discussed above,<\/p>\n
                                                             13<\/span>
\nand in view of the fact that one blow is on the vital part i.e.<\/p>\n
chest and the deceased died due to the said injury, the Court<\/p>\n
is fully justified in convicting him under Section 302 and<\/p>\n
imposing life sentence. Since we have already discussed the<\/p>\n
evidence of those persons in the earlier part of our order, there<\/p>\n
is no need to refer the same once again. In view of the factual<\/p>\n
details, the decision relied on by Mr. Lalit is distinguishable<\/p>\n
and not applicable to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
13) Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that<\/p>\n
having framed charges against all the accused and after<\/p>\n
acquittal of all the accused except the appellant, the same<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained.      We are unable to accept the said<\/p>\n
contention.   As observed in Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal<\/p>\n
Saheb & Others vs. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450, in view<\/p>\n
of Section 464 Cr.P.C. it is possible for the appellate or<\/p>\n
revisional court to convict an accused for an offence for which<\/p>\n
no charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that<\/p>\n
failure of justice would in fact occasion. In the present case,<\/p>\n
the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose<\/p>\n
testimony has been relied upon, clearly deposed that appellant<\/p>\n
                                                               14<\/span>
\nhas assaulted the deceased with a knife. In his examination<\/p>\n
under Section under Section 313 Cr.P.C. a specific question<\/p>\n
was put to the appellant and he was made aware of the basic<\/p>\n
ingredients of the offence and the main facts sought to be<\/p>\n
established against him were explained to him. Thus, he can<\/p>\n
be convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the<\/p>\n
murder.\n<\/p>\n
14)     Law is fairly well settled that even if acquittal is<\/p>\n
recorded in respect of the co-accused on the ground that<\/p>\n
there     were   exaggerations   and   embellishments,   yet<\/p>\n
conviction can be recorded if the evidence is found cogent,<\/p>\n
credible and truthful in respect of another accused. The<\/p>\n
mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased<\/p>\n
cannot be a ground to discard their evidence.       In law,<\/p>\n
testimony of an injured witness is given importance.<\/p>\n
When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and<\/p>\n
inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be<\/p>\n
noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they<\/p>\n
would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons.<\/p>\n
                                                          15<\/span>
\nThe truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed<\/p>\n
pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the<\/p>\n
evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are<\/p>\n
inimically disposed towards the accused.        But if after<\/p>\n
careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version<\/p>\n
given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and<\/p>\n
credible, there is no reason to discard the same.<\/p>\n
Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence. In<\/p>\n
our case, as observed earlier, the Trial Court and the High<\/p>\n
Court have analysed the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 4 in<\/p>\n
great detail. It is revealed that the appellant had inflicted<\/p>\n
the first blow on the deceased in his chest and he fell on<\/p>\n
the ground. The High Court found that the role ascribed<\/p>\n
to the others was not fully satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
15) In the light of the discussion we do not find any merit<\/p>\n
in the appeal, on the other hand, we are in agreement with<\/p>\n
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently,<\/p>\n
the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                           16<\/span>
\n                ……………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                 (P. SATHASIVAM)<\/p>\n
                ……………………………………J.
\n                 (H.L. DATTU)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
MAY 10, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Dattu REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1978 OF 2008 Balraje @ Trimbak …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Maharashtra …. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBalraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-11T18:32:44+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-11T18:32:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2862,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-11T18:32:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-11T18:32:44+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-11T18:32:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010"},"wordCount":2862,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010","name":"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-11T18:32:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balraje-trimbak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190801","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=190801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}