{"id":19492,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-05T21:10:34","modified_gmt":"2018-07-05T15:40:34","slug":"hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar<\/div>\n
                                                        1\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE\n                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                    \n    Shivaji @Shiva Shrimant Sonawane                                                )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n    Hindu, adult, age 21 years, r\/o Dnyandeo Jadhav Chawl,                          )\n    near Rationing shop, Milind Nagar, Kalyan (W),                                  )\n    Dist. Thane (At present detained in Kolhapur Prison                             )...Appellant\n\n                    vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n    State of Maharashtra                                                            ...Respondent\n\n    Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the appellant.\n    Mr.D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                                       ig                   CORAM:  P.B. MAJMUDAR  &\n                                                                            R.G. KETKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                           Judgment reserved on:      19th January, 2010\n                                           Judgment pronounced on: 17       February, 2010\n                                                                         th\n                                                                                          \n\n\n    JUDGMENT : (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.)\n         \n      \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                    This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and   order   of <\/p>\n
    conviction   passed   by   the   1st  Ad-hoc   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Kolhapur, <\/p>\n
    dated 16th October, 2002 in Sessions Case No. 440 of 2001. The learned Judge <\/p>\n
    has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of <\/p>\n
    the   Indian   Penal   Code   (hereinafter   “IPC”)   for   committing   murder   of   one <\/p>\n
    Laxman Chintu Dhanva   and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.   The <\/p>\n
    appellant was also directed to pay  fine of Rs. 1,000\/- and in default to suffer <\/p>\n
    rigorous  imprisonment  for  three  months.  The  appellant was also   convicted <\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
    under Section 452 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous <\/p>\n
    imprisonment   for   five   years  and  also   awarded   fine   of   Rs.  1,000\/-    and   in <\/p>\n
    default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.  Both the sentences <\/p>\n
    were ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            The aforesaid order of conviction is challenged by the appellant-\n<\/p>\n
    original accused No.1 by way of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The   trial   Court   framed   charge   against   the   appellant   as   well   as <\/p>\n
    against   original   accused   No.2-Amit   Dattatraya   Patil,   at   Exh.   2.   As   per   the <\/p>\n
    charge,   on   24th  October,   2000,   at   about   20.45   hrs.,   in   the   house   of   the <\/p>\n
    complaint, Smt. Latika Laxman Dhanva, at Laxmi  Bhoir chawl,  Room No.5, <\/p>\n
    Milind   Nagar,   Kalyan   (West),   within   the   jurisdiction   of   Mahatma   Phule <\/p>\n
    Chowk Police Station, Kalyan, in furtherance of their common intention the <\/p>\n
    accused entered  the house of the complainant and unlawfully restrained the <\/p>\n
    complainant   and   put   the   complainant   into   fear   of   assault   and   thereby <\/p>\n
    committed an offence punishable under Section 452 read with  Section 34 of <\/p>\n
    the   IPC.   Secondly,   the   above   named   accused,   during   the   course   of   same <\/p>\n
    transaction and in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder <\/p>\n
    by   intentionally   or   knowingly   causing   the   death   of   the   husband   of   the <\/p>\n
    complainant viz. Laxman Chintu Dhanva  by assaulting him by means of gupti <\/p>\n
    on the vital parts of his body and thereby committed an offence punishable <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused did not plead <\/p>\n
    guilty to the charge framed.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            The prosecution case is that Complainant Latika Dhanva resides at <\/p>\n
    Laxman   Bhoir   Chawl   in   Milind   Nagar   area   at   Kalyan   (West).   The   victim <\/p>\n
    Laxman     was   the   husband   of   the   said   complainant.   The   daughters   of   the <\/p>\n
    complainant   viz.   Alka   and   Anita   and   her   sons   Arvind   and   Manoj     were <\/p>\n
    residing jointly.  Deceased Laxman was serving as a Gardner-Mukadam in the <\/p>\n
    office of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation at Kalyan.   At the time <\/p>\n
    of   the   occurrence,   the   complainant’s   elder   daughter   Alka,   aged   about   15 <\/p>\n
    years,   was   taking   education   in   VIIIth   standard   in   Nutan   Vidhyalaya   High <\/p>\n
    School at Kalyan.   Accused No.1 Shivaji (present appellant) was residing in <\/p>\n
    the chawl which   is situate by the side of the chawl in which Complainant <\/p>\n
    Latika     was   residing.   Occasionally,   accused     Shivaji   used   to   visit   the <\/p>\n
    Complainant’s   home.     After   observing   the   conduct   of   said   Shivaji,   Latika <\/p>\n
    warned him not to arrive at her residence on the ground that she is having <\/p>\n
    young   daughters.  It is  also   the   case  of  prosecution that about  four   to   five <\/p>\n
    months   prior   to   the   incident,   deceased   Laxman   had   seen   accused   Shivaji <\/p>\n
    talking with Alka on the road. At that time Laxman slapped on Shivaji’s face <\/p>\n
    and told him not to meet his daughter again and not to speak to his daughter.\n<\/p>\n
    The said Laxman   learnt that accused Shivaji was clandestinely   meeting his <\/p>\n
    daughter Alka and hence on two-three occasions altercation has taken place <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    between accused Shivaji and deceased Laxman.  Laxman had warned accused <\/p>\n
    Shivaji not to speak to his daughter and, therefore, Shivaji became furious and <\/p>\n
    was angry with Laxman in view of the same.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            On 24th October, 2000, at 5.00 p.m. Laxman returned home from <\/p>\n
    his duty.  After taking tea, he went to the market for fetching vegetables. At <\/p>\n
    about 8.30 p.m. Laxman, his wife Latika and Alka and Anita were watching <\/p>\n
    T.V.  at their   home.   About  8.30   to  8.40   p.m,  accused  Shivaji  and   original <\/p>\n
    accused No.2-Amit Patil suddenly entered the complainant’s room. Accused <\/p>\n
    Shivaji abused Laxman in an indecent language and also asked Laxman as to <\/p>\n
    why     he   is   not   allowing   him   to   meet   his   daughter   Alka.   Accused   rushed <\/p>\n
    towards Laxman to assault him. Latika and Alka went to rescue Laxman but <\/p>\n
    accused Shivaji and Amit pushed aside Latika and Alka. Thereupon, accused <\/p>\n
    Shivaji took out a gupti from his waist and stabbed Laxman on the left side of <\/p>\n
    his stomach.  Latika and her daughter  tried to apprehend the accused Shivaji <\/p>\n
    and   at   that   time   accused   No.2   obstructed   Latika   and   Alka     from   rescuing <\/p>\n
    Laxman. Simultaneously, accused Shivaji again stabbed Laxman on the left <\/p>\n
    side   of   his   stomach   with   gupti.     Laxman   received   serious   injuries   and <\/p>\n
    collapsed on the floor.  Latika and her daughter shouted loudly for help. The <\/p>\n
    accused  thereafter ran way and disappeared in the darkness.  Thereafter the <\/p>\n
    complainant and her neighbours took the victim Laxman to a hospital in a <\/p>\n
    rickshaw.   The   victim   was   admitted   at   Rukminibai   Hospital   at   Kalyan.   The <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Medical   Officer   Dr.   Dondiram   Gokhale   examined   the   victim   Laxman   and <\/p>\n
    pronounced  him dead.  The wife of the victim Latika filed a complaint on 24th <\/p>\n
    October, 2000 at about 20.45 Hrs. at Mahatma Phule Police Station against <\/p>\n
    both the accused.   On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a crime bearing <\/p>\n
    No. I-326\/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 452 read <\/p>\n
    with 34 IPC was registered against the accused.  The police after  completing <\/p>\n
    the investigation submitted a charge-sheet and, as pointed out earlier, charge <\/p>\n
    was framed against the appellant and other accused viz. Amit Patil. Since they <\/p>\n
    did not plead guilty, the trial commenced against both the accused.  On behalf <\/p>\n
    of the prosecution 15 witnesses were examined.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            The learned trial Judge held that both the accused entered into <\/p>\n
    the room of the complainant on the relevant day   and from the evidence of <\/p>\n
    eye witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1-Shivaji <\/p>\n
    entered the house with gupti and stabbed the victim. The learned Judge found <\/p>\n
    that as per the evidence on record, the ingredients of Section 452 as well as <\/p>\n
    34   of   the   IPC   are   proved   and   accordingly   convicted     the   appellant     and <\/p>\n
    accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 34 of <\/p>\n
    the IPC.   However, the learned Judge   acquitted original accused No.2 Amit <\/p>\n
    Patil for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted <\/p>\n
    the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. .\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.           The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable <\/p>\n
    doubt.     The  learned  counsel   further  submitted  that the  presence    of  PW1, <\/p>\n
    PW2, PW3 and PW8 at the spot   at the relevant time was doubtful and the <\/p>\n
    same is not established in evidence.  Learned counsel further submitted that <\/p>\n
    the   prosecution   has   come   with   two   conflicting   and   contradictory   versions <\/p>\n
    about the incident. It is submitted that out of two versions, only one version <\/p>\n
    can be said to be  true. It is further submitted that the prosecution  version is <\/p>\n
    supported  by the evidence of PW1,  PW2, PW3 and PW8. According to these <\/p>\n
    witnesses, they have stated that they had seen the incident and they witnessed <\/p>\n
    the   incident.   It   is,   however,   submitted   that   the   other   two   independent <\/p>\n
    witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW 12 and PW 14  have deposed <\/p>\n
    in their evidence that when they reached the spot, the deceased was in an <\/p>\n
    injured condition but alive and was resting his back to the wall demanding <\/p>\n
    water and that they gave water to him, put a towel  on the wound  to restrict <\/p>\n
    the flow of blood  and took him to the hospital.  They have stated that during <\/p>\n
    the aforesaid time, the deceased was alone at home and no family member of <\/p>\n
    the deceased was present in the house. It is submitted that the aforesaid piece <\/p>\n
    of evidence  has  been corroborated by other evidence led by the prosecution, <\/p>\n
    such as the presence of the towel, presence of blood on the towel, etc.   It is <\/p>\n
    submitted that on the other hand the evidence of the family members, i.e. <\/p>\n
    PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW8 is not believable as they are interested witnesses <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    and their evidence is otherwise not free from doubt.  It is submitted that when <\/p>\n
    there are conflicting versions and when it is not possible to accept both the <\/p>\n
    versions that the one which is in favour of the accused should be accepted <\/p>\n
    especially   when   the     witnesses   have   not   been   declared     hostile   by   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution and in such eventuality, the evidence of such witness is binding <\/p>\n
    on   the   prosecution.     It   is     also   submitted   that   PW   12   and   PW   14   are <\/p>\n
    independent   witnesses   and   their   evidence   is   required   to   be   preferred   as <\/p>\n
    against the evidence of family members.  It is submitted that it is not possible <\/p>\n
    to believe that the accused after entering the house of the victim would stab <\/p>\n
    him without any prelude or without any exchange of words. Learned counsel <\/p>\n
    further   submitted   that   the   article   of   clothing   found   on   the   person   of   the <\/p>\n
    deceased by the hospital and subsequently handed over to the police under <\/p>\n
    panchanama at Exh. 11 is a towel which was found by the Chemical Analyser <\/p>\n
    to have innumerable blood stains.  It is submitted that neither the presence of <\/p>\n
    the towel among the articles found at the hospital nor the presence of blood <\/p>\n
    stains on the   towel has been explained   by any of the family   members in <\/p>\n
    their evidence. As against that, independent witnesses i.e. PW 12 and PW 14 <\/p>\n
    have stated that when they entered the house of the deceased, they saw the <\/p>\n
    deceased in a wounded condition, they tied the towel to his wounds to stop <\/p>\n
    the blood and took him in a rickshaw to the hospital.  It is submitted  that this <\/p>\n
    explains the presence of the towel among the articles   which were found at <\/p>\n
    the hospital and also the presence of blood stains on the towel   bearing the <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
    blood group of the deceased.     It is submitted that if the family members of <\/p>\n
    the deceased had taken the deceased to the hospital, they would have been <\/p>\n
    able to explain the presence of towel.  Learned counsel further submitted that <\/p>\n
    even though the family members have deposed that PW 1 took the deceased <\/p>\n
    to the hospital along with one neighbour, no particulars of such neighbour is <\/p>\n
    given as to who accompanied PW 1  at the time when the victim was taken to <\/p>\n
    the hospital.  It is  also submitted that though PW 1  claims that she took the <\/p>\n
    deceased to the hospital, her clothes which may have stained with blood have <\/p>\n
    not been seized.   It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the <\/p>\n
    deceased had suffered two stab injuries  and in that case there is bound to be <\/p>\n
    a lot of blood split at the spot. Yet, only a solitary spot of blood  that was dry <\/p>\n
    and faded was found in the house of the victim and that blood has not been <\/p>\n
    shown to belong to the deceased. It is submitted that absence of blood on the <\/p>\n
    spot strongly suggests that the incident did not occur in the house as alleged <\/p>\n
    by the family members.  It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, <\/p>\n
    the   incident   occurred   after   the   deceased   had   returned   from   work   and   the <\/p>\n
    family   members   alleged   to   have   been   present   at   that   time   in   the   house.\n<\/p>\n
    However, they have given different versions about the return of the deceased <\/p>\n
    from his work.   It is also submitted that none of the family members has been <\/p>\n
    asked to identify the clothes of the accused. It is submitted that the clothes of <\/p>\n
    the deceased were shown only to PW 8, who was barely about 10 years old at <\/p>\n
    the time of the incident and his presence at the spot has not been mentioned <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
    by   PW   1,   PW2   or   PW3.       It   is   submitted   that   there   are   omissions   and <\/p>\n
    improvements in the say of the witnesses i.e. PW1, PW3 and PW8.  It is  also <\/p>\n
    submitted that  as per the say of PW1, PW3 and PW 8, the accused locked the <\/p>\n
    door from inside which fact has not been mentioned to the police. It is also <\/p>\n
    submitted that the said witness have also not stated before the police that the <\/p>\n
    co-accused caught hold   of the deceased and restrained him   while he was <\/p>\n
    stabbed by the accused No.1 and the said version is given for the first time <\/p>\n
    before the Court.  It is submitted that it is also not possible that the accused <\/p>\n
    who was having intimacy with the girl would enter her house with the sole <\/p>\n
    object of murdering her father. It is submitted that  the recovery made on the <\/p>\n
    basis of the disclosure statement of the accused by which gupti is recovered <\/p>\n
    from the grass outside the public toilet  can never be said to be reasonable at <\/p>\n
    all as it is nothing but a farce.  It is submitted that the I.O. has admitted in his <\/p>\n
    evidence that in none of the remand applications preferred while the accused <\/p>\n
    was in police custody, he has mentioned about the recovery of the clothes and <\/p>\n
    this would show that there was no such recovery made  on 27th October, 2000 <\/p>\n
    as alleged by the prosecution.   It is submitted that the alleged discovery made <\/p>\n
    on 27th October, 2000 and 30th October, 2000 vide Exhibit 23, 24 , 27 and 28 <\/p>\n
    were a farce and carried out  to fabricate the evidence. It is submitted that the <\/p>\n
    alleged recovery   of the clothes at the instance of the accused has not been <\/p>\n
    shown to any of the eye witnesses. It is also submitted that the confessional <\/p>\n
    statement   relied   upon   by   the   prosecution   is   contradictory   in   nature.     It   is <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
    submitted that as per the confessional statement recorded at Exh. 44,   the <\/p>\n
    accused confessed that the deceased was killed with a kitchen knife. However, <\/p>\n
    as per Exh. 23, the accused confessed that he killed the deceased with a gupti.\n<\/p>\n
    It is submitted that gupti and knife both are different type of weapons.  It is <\/p>\n
    submitted that the so-called confessional statements are not consistent. It is <\/p>\n
    submitted that gupti was recovered from the grass in the area adjoining to the <\/p>\n
    public toilet and it is impossible   that a gupti which is 12 inches long could <\/p>\n
    remain undetected for  five days at such a public place.  It is submitted that <\/p>\n
    when a public  place is accessible  to all, the recovery of an article from such a <\/p>\n
    public   place   is   not   admissible   under   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act.   The <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, according to the <\/p>\n
    prosecution, the accused’s clothes were recovered from a show case kept in his <\/p>\n
    house but it is not possible to believe that after committing the murder, the <\/p>\n
    accused  would try and conceal his blood stained clothes by keeping them in <\/p>\n
    the show case.   Learned counsel further submitted  that the panchas selected <\/p>\n
    by the police are not the persons who can be said to be independent panchas <\/p>\n
    as they are all connected to the police   or the deceased as PW 5 and PW 6 <\/p>\n
    were the colleagues of the deceased and they had visited the hospital and also <\/p>\n
    attended   his   funeral.   It   is   submitted   that   PW   4   used   to   go   to   the   police <\/p>\n
    regularly.   It   is   submitted   that   the   disclosure   statement   is   required   to   be <\/p>\n
    discarded   as  there   is  nothing   to   connect   the   accused   to   the   recovery.   The <\/p>\n
    learned   counsel   further   submitted   that   the   panchanama   prepared   is   also <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
    highly doubtful as there are gaps which have been left in the panchanama for <\/p>\n
    the insertion of the dates, timings, etc.  The learned counsel further submitted <\/p>\n
    that the alleged motive attributed  is an incident  which had occurred about <\/p>\n
    four months prior to the incident as the deceased had slapped the accused and <\/p>\n
    warned him not to meet his daughter again.  It is submitted that the motive <\/p>\n
    attributed is, therefore, too stale   and insufficient to constitute a motive to <\/p>\n
    murder   a   person   four   months   later.   It   is   submitted   that   if   really   accused <\/p>\n
    wanted to commit an offence because of the alleged incident, there was no <\/p>\n
    reason for him to wait for four months.  In the alternative,  it is submitted that <\/p>\n
    even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its <\/p>\n
    case   that   it   was   the   accused   who   had   killed   the   deceased,   even   in   that <\/p>\n
    eventuality   it   can   be   said   that   the   accused   has   committed   an   offence <\/p>\n
    punishable under Section   304 Part-I   or II or Section 326 of the IPC. It is <\/p>\n
    submitted that the doctor has not deposed that the injuries were sufficient to <\/p>\n
    cause death and in the absence of such a finding, the ingredients of Section <\/p>\n
    302 IPC are not satisfied and in that view of the matter, conviction under <\/p>\n
    Section 302 IPC is not sustainable and the case would fall under Section 326 <\/p>\n
    IPC   or   304   Part-II.     In   order   to   substantiate   his   submission,   the   learned <\/p>\n
    counsel has relied upon the evidence of the doctor by which the doctor has <\/p>\n
    stated   that  the   deceased   might  have   survived   if   prompt   medical   treatment <\/p>\n
    was   given.     It   is   also   submitted   that   the   disclosure   statement   of   accused, <\/p>\n
    which is relied upon by the  prosecution, shows  that the accused did not carry <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   weapon   with   him   when   he   went   to   the   house   of   the   deceased.     It   is <\/p>\n
    submitted that in any case the incident occurred at the spur of the moment <\/p>\n
    owing to the exchange of words between the victim and the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            The  learned counsel for  the  appellant has placed on record his <\/p>\n
    written submissions.   The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that <\/p>\n
    considering the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is required to be allowed by <\/p>\n
    setting aside the order of   conviction or in the alternative the conviction is <\/p>\n
    required to be altered to Section 304 Part II or Section 326 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            The   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecution,   on   the   other   hand, <\/p>\n
    submitted  that the prosecution has proved its case that it is the accused who <\/p>\n
    committed   the   alleged   offence     and   the   prosecution   has   proved   its   case <\/p>\n
    beyond   reasonable   doubt   against   the   accused.       It   is   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    conviction recorded by the   learned trial Judge is based on the evidence of <\/p>\n
    PW1, PW2 and PW 3 who had witnessed the incident in question and their <\/p>\n
    presence in the house is natural as the accused came at the victim’s house at <\/p>\n
    the late evening and  at that time naturally the presence of the  said witnesses <\/p>\n
    in  the   house   is  natural.  It  is submitted   that  the   said   witnesses  have   given <\/p>\n
    correct description of the incident in question. The learned APP has further <\/p>\n
    submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW <\/p>\n
    8 is consistent with other evidence on record and is not at   variance. It is <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
    submitted that the weapon in question i.e. gupti was not visible but it was <\/p>\n
    hidden   and, therefore, recovery was absolutely proper as it took about five <\/p>\n
    days to find out the said weapon from the place in question. It is submitted <\/p>\n
    that the prosecution has clearly established the motive.  It is further submitted <\/p>\n
    that simply because the witnesses are related to the victim, it  cannot be said <\/p>\n
    that   their   evidence   cannot   be   believed   or   required   to   be   discarded.   The <\/p>\n
    learned APP further submitted that the injury in question is proved by medical <\/p>\n
    evidence   and   the   accused   inflicted   two   fatal   blows   on   the   stomach   of   the <\/p>\n
    deceased which resulted into the death of deceased and, therefore, this case <\/p>\n
    squarely falls under Section 302 of the IPC . The murder is committed with <\/p>\n
    the   intention   and   knowledge.   It   is   submitted   that   since   the   deceased   was <\/p>\n
    against   the   relationship   of   accused   with   his   daughter   that   ultimately   the <\/p>\n
    accused   committed   this   heinous   crime     of   murdering   the   deceased.   It   is <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   in   view   of   the   overwhelming   evidence   on   record,   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    It   can,   therefore,   be   safely   said   that   the   prosecution   has   proved   its   case <\/p>\n
    against   the   accused   and   the   learned   trial   Judge   has   rightly   convicted   the <\/p>\n
    accused under Section 302 of the IPC.  Both the sides have also cited various <\/p>\n
    judgments to substantiate their say.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           We have heard the learned counsel at great length. We have gone <\/p>\n
    through   the   evidence   on   record.   We   have   also   gone   through   the   written <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
    submissions.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           On   behalf   of   the   prosecution,   complainant   Latika   Dhanva   was <\/p>\n
    examined as prosecution witness No.1 at Exh. 13.   In her evidence she has <\/p>\n
    stated that at the time of incident she was residing at Milind Nagar, Kalyan.\n<\/p>\n
    She was residing with her daughter Alka, two sons Arvind and Manoj as well <\/p>\n
    as with his deceased husband Laxman. She has stated that her husband was <\/p>\n
    serving at Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and he used to go on duty <\/p>\n
    at 8.00 a.m. and used to come back about 12 Noon for taking food.  At  5.00 <\/p>\n
    p.m. he used to come back after his duty. In her evidence she has stated that <\/p>\n
    before four to five months prior to the incident, her daughter Alka was talking <\/p>\n
    with accused Shivaji and her husband  Laxman  saw them talking with each <\/p>\n
    other. Her husband warned accused No.1 not to talk with Alka. The witness <\/p>\n
    has further stated that on 24th   October, 2000, at 8.00 p.m. accused No. 1 <\/p>\n
    Shivaji came to their house.   He closed the door of the house from inside.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused No.2 Amit Patil was also with accused No.1.  Accused No.1 stabbed <\/p>\n
    the deceased on the left side of his stomach.   She and her daughter went to <\/p>\n
    rescue  Laxman.  In her examination, she has stated that the accused stabbed <\/p>\n
    her husband twice. Thereupon her husband fell down. Accused No.2 caught <\/p>\n
    hold of her husband when accused No.1 stabbed her husband. The accused <\/p>\n
    thereafter   ran  away.   In  her   evidence   she   has  stated   that  she   and   one   boy <\/p>\n
    removed   her   husband   to   the   hospital   and   thereafter   she   filed   a   complaint <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
    which   is   at   Exh.   14.     The   said   witness   has   identified   gupti   by   which   her <\/p>\n
    husband was stabbed.  In the cross-examination she has  stated that her room <\/p>\n
    was   admeasuring 10′ x 10′. In the cross-examination she has stated that on <\/p>\n
    the date of the incident they were sitting in the said room and because of their <\/p>\n
    shouts some persons gathered outside the house. According to her, about 50 <\/p>\n
    to 60 persons gathered at the time of the incident. She denied the  suggestion <\/p>\n
    that there was love affair between her daughter  Alka and the accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    12.            The prosecution also examined the daughter of the victim Alka as <\/p>\n
    prosecution witness No.2 at Exh. 15. She has stated in her evidence that she <\/p>\n
    used to see accused No.1 Shivaji on the road and  accused No.1 used to smile <\/p>\n
    at her. The said witness  has stated that before four to five months prior to the <\/p>\n
    incident, she was   speaking with accused Shivaji and at that time her father <\/p>\n
    Laxman  came  and  told   accused  No.1   that  he   should  not  talk  to  her.    Her <\/p>\n
    father gave a threat to accused No.1 that if he again talk with her, he would <\/p>\n
    file complaint against him in the police station. The said witness has stated <\/p>\n
    that the incident   took place at about 8.10 p.m. on 24 th  October, 2000. She <\/p>\n
    sated that accused Shivaji and his friend entered the house. She identified <\/p>\n
    both the accused. In her evidence she has stated that accused No.1 asked her <\/p>\n
    father as to why he did not allow him to talk with Alka. Her father told the <\/p>\n
    accused that he would like to speak to the accused in this behalf outside the <\/p>\n
    house.  Accused No.1 caught hold of shirt of her father. She and her mother <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
    Latika   went   to   rescue   her   father   but   accused   pushed   her   and   her   mother <\/p>\n
    aside. The accused was having a knife which was kept with him in the left side <\/p>\n
    of his waist. Accused stabbed  her father with a gupti   on the left side and he <\/p>\n
    stabbed him twice and her father fell down. The witness has further stated <\/p>\n
    that her mother and one boy took her father to the hospital and her father <\/p>\n
    died on the same day. She has stated   that her father was stabbed by the <\/p>\n
    accused with gupti. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she knew <\/p>\n
    the accused since about one year.  She has further stated that she was having <\/p>\n
    love affair with accused No.1. she has stated that her family  members did not <\/p>\n
    like the love affair with the accused No.1.  In her cross-examination she stated <\/p>\n
    that her father told the accused that he would file a complaint if accused No.1 <\/p>\n
    talked with her. She has stated that many people gathered outside the house.\n<\/p>\n
    13.           The   prosecution   examined   son   of   the   deceased   Arvind   as <\/p>\n
    prosecution witness No. 3 at Exh. 16.   He is aged about 14 years. The said <\/p>\n
    witness has stated that deceased Laxman was his father.   The incident took <\/p>\n
    place on 24th October, 2000. At the time of incident he was at home. At about <\/p>\n
    i.30 p.m. in the evening his father returned   from duty and about 8.30 p.m. <\/p>\n
    accused   Shivaji   and   another   accused   came   to   their   house.   Accused   Shivaji <\/p>\n
    closed the door from inside. Accused Shivaji told his father that he wanted to <\/p>\n
    talk with him. His father told him that he would talk with the accused outside <\/p>\n
    the house. The accused told him that he wants to talk  there only. The accused <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
    No.1 started beating his father and another accused pushed aside his mother <\/p>\n
    and sister. Accused No.1 Shivaji took out a gupti and stabbed his father on <\/p>\n
    stomach. When her mother tried to rescue his father, accused No.1 pushed <\/p>\n
    her. His father fell down and all of them started shouting. The said witness <\/p>\n
    further stated that her mother and one boy removed his father to the hospital <\/p>\n
    and his father died there.  The witness also identified the gupti.   In the cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination the   witness has stated that his statement and the statement of <\/p>\n
    his   mother   and   sister   were   recorded   one   by   one.   The   witness   denied   the <\/p>\n
    suggestion in the cross-examination that because of his father’s drinking habit <\/p>\n
    disputes took place between his father and neighbours.\n<\/p>\n
    14.           One Rajendra Pashte was examined as prosecution witness No.4 <\/p>\n
    by the prosecution at Exh. 22. The said witness  is a panch witness. He signed <\/p>\n
    the   memorandum   of   panchanama   exh.   23.   The   said   panchanama   is   in <\/p>\n
    connection with the discovery of the clothes of the accused Shivaji. The said <\/p>\n
    witness has stated   in his evidence that he along with   accused Shivaji   and <\/p>\n
    one constable Bangare went to the house of accused Shivaji. He produced one <\/p>\n
    shirt and pant from the show case kept in his house. The police seized   the <\/p>\n
    shirt   and   pant   and   prepared   the   discovery   panchanama.   In   the   cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination the said witness has stated that the police chowky is near a shop <\/p>\n
    named Prem Auto. At the time of making panchanama, he was unemployed.\n<\/p>\n
    He has stated that he was knowing Police Constable Thorat as he used to meet <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   18<\/span><\/p>\n
    him   in   connection   with   his   work.   He   stated   that   he   did   not   know   where <\/p>\n
    Thorat resides.\n<\/p>\n
    15.           Prosecution examined one Balu Jadhav as prosecution witness No.<\/p>\n
    5 at Exh.25. The said witness was called as a panch witness at Mahatma Phule <\/p>\n
    Police Station where accused No.1 was also present there.  Accused No.1 gave <\/p>\n
    a statement that he has kept his clothes in room at Milind Nagar. He sent the <\/p>\n
    discovery panchanama at Exh. 23.  In the cross-examination  the said witness <\/p>\n
    has stated that he was serving as a Gardner in Kalyan Municipal Corporation <\/p>\n
    and deceased Laxman was also serving in Kalyan Municipal Corporation in <\/p>\n
    Garden Department.\n<\/p>\n
    16.           One Anant Patil was examined as prosecution witness No.6   at <\/p>\n
    Exh. 26 as a panch witness in connection with the discovery of gupti. The said <\/p>\n
    witness has stated that accused No.1 took him along with another panch and <\/p>\n
    police to a public latrine situate in Milind Nagar, Kalyan in Government jeep.\n<\/p>\n
    The accused produced one gupti hidden in heap of grass.   Police seized the <\/p>\n
    gupti and the seizure panchanama was prepared at Exh. 28.   In the cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination, the said witness has admitted that he was serving as a Gardner <\/p>\n
    in   Kalyan   Municipal   Corporation   in   the   Garden   Department.   In   the   cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination he has stated that he had gone to the hospital where Laxman was <\/p>\n
    admitted and he had attended his funeral also.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 19<\/span><\/p>\n
    17.          One Mahesh Badhange was examined as prosecution witness no.\n<\/p>\n
    7. He was called as a panch witness.  The said witness has stated that accused <\/p>\n
    was not arrested in his presence and clothes of the accused were not seized in <\/p>\n
    his presence.\n<\/p>\n
    18.          The   prosecution   also   examined   the   daughter   of   the   deceased, <\/p>\n
    Anita as prosecution witness No. 8 at Exh. 36, who is aged about 12 years.\n<\/p>\n
    The trial Court had asked her few questions regarding the sanctity of the oath <\/p>\n
    and after recording the fact that the witness is aware of the sanctity of the <\/p>\n
    oath, oath was administered to the said witness. The said witness has stated in <\/p>\n
    her evidence that she knew accused No.1 Shivaji and accused No.2 Amit Patil.\n<\/p>\n
    The said witness has stated that her father had slapped accused No.1 as he <\/p>\n
    was talking with her sister. The said  witness has stated that  on 24 th October, <\/p>\n
    2000 she was at home and her sister and her brothers Arvind and Manoj and <\/p>\n
    her father were present at home. They were watching T.V. and  at that time <\/p>\n
    accused Shivaji and Amit Patil entered the house. Amit Patil fastened the latch <\/p>\n
    of the door from inside and her father told the accused Laxman that whatever <\/p>\n
    they   wanted   to   speak,   they   should   speak   outside   the   house   but   accused <\/p>\n
    Shivaji insisted that he wants   to speak to her   father inside the room.   The <\/p>\n
    accused Shivaji asked her father as to why he is not allowing his daughter <\/p>\n
    Alka to meet him. The accused Shivaji thereafter took out a gupti and stabbed <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    20<\/span><\/p>\n
    his father on the stomach. Her mother and sister tried to stop the accused but <\/p>\n
    the accused Amit Patil caught hold of her mother and her sister Alka. Then <\/p>\n
    accused Shivaji inflicted a second stab on the stomach of her father. The said <\/p>\n
    witness has stated that accused Shivaji also her aside and her sister and her <\/p>\n
    mother. In her evidence she has stated that her father fell down on the floor.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused No.1 and Amit Patil thereafter ran way. The said witness has stated <\/p>\n
    that her mother took her father to the Municipal Hospital. She has identified <\/p>\n
    the weapon i.e. gupti. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that their <\/p>\n
    relationship with the persons who were residing in the chawl were not good.\n<\/p>\n
    She has stated that before talking to the police regarding the incident, she did <\/p>\n
    not   tell   about   the   incident   to   anybody.     In   the   cross-examination   she   has <\/p>\n
    stated   that   her   father   was  taken   to   the   hospital   in  one   rickshaw.   She   has <\/p>\n
    stated that her mother and the rickshawala placed her father in the rickshaw <\/p>\n
    and the persons residing in the neighbourhood did not come to take her father <\/p>\n
    in the rickshaw. She has stated that rickshaw came within five minutes on the <\/p>\n
    call given by her mother.  In the cross-examination she has stated that on the <\/p>\n
    day of the incident, for the first time, she saw accused No.2 Amit Patil. She <\/p>\n
    has further stated that since his name was declared in the newspaper and, <\/p>\n
    therefore,   she   came   to   know   about   the   name   of   the   said   person.   She   has <\/p>\n
    stated that she had seen accused No.1 before the incident.\n<\/p>\n
    19.           One Pandit Salve was examined as prosecution witness No.9 at <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                           21<\/span><\/p>\n
    Exhibit-39 who was called as a panch witness on 26th October, 2000.  The said <\/p>\n
    witness has stated that the accused was not  arrested in his presence.\n<\/p>\n
    20.         One Janardhan S. Kale was examined as prosecution witness No. <\/p>\n
    10 at Exh. 42. The said witness has stated that victim Laxman was having one <\/p>\n
    daughter but he stated that he did not know who killed Laxman. The said <\/p>\n
    witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    21.         The prosecution also examined   Mahendra Bhoir as prosecution <\/p>\n
    witness No.11 at Exh. 43 who was called as a panch witness . The said witness <\/p>\n
    was declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
    22.         The prosecution also examined one Ganesh Matkar as prosecution <\/p>\n
    witness No.12 at Exh. 47. The said witness has stated that his friend Sandip <\/p>\n
    Jadhav was residing in Milind Nagar area of Kalyan. He used to go to Milind <\/p>\n
    Nagar area. The said witness has stated that he knew Amit Patil, accused No.<\/p>\n
    2. He stated that he did not know the person named Laxman Dhanva. The <\/p>\n
    witness further stated that he did not now Laxman’s daughter’s name. The <\/p>\n
    said witness has stated that on 24th October, 2000, the incident took place at <\/p>\n
    about 8.30 p.m. He had gone to his friend Sandip Kesarkar’s house for a party <\/p>\n
    and his other friends Yogesh Wagle, Mangesh Gaikwad and Sandip Kesarkar <\/p>\n
    were there. At the time when they were proceeding towards their home, they <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n
    saw the crowd near one chawl in Milind Nagar and accordingly they went <\/p>\n
    there.  The said witness has stated that  thereafter his friends went there . He <\/p>\n
    also went inside the room and saw one person was resting his back to the wall <\/p>\n
    and blood was oozing from his stomach. The witness has stated that Mangesh <\/p>\n
    Gaikwad tied towel around the stomach of that person and in one rickshaw <\/p>\n
    they took him to Municipal Hospital. He has stated that the accused were not <\/p>\n
    present on the site. The said witness has stated that Mangesh Gaikwad has <\/p>\n
    taken a towel from the house of the deceased but he stated that he had not <\/p>\n
    seen anybody in the house. The said witness has stated that he did not go to <\/p>\n
    the hospital. He stated that his friend Yogesh had gone to the hospital. He has <\/p>\n
    stated that  between his house and Laxman’s house,  there are about 20 to 30 <\/p>\n
    houses. In the cross-examination the said witness has admitted that  only he <\/p>\n
    and his friends went inside the room and they called the persons from the <\/p>\n
    group to remove the deceased in the rickshaw but nobody came to help them.\n<\/p>\n
    He has stated that at that time relatives of the deceased had not come there.\n<\/p>\n
    He further stated that deceased was initially alive and was demanding water.\n<\/p>\n
    23.         The prosecution  also examined Dr. Dondiram Tatoba Gokhale as <\/p>\n
    prosecution witness No. 13 at Exh. 49. The aforesaid witness has stated in his <\/p>\n
    evidence that on 24th October, 2000 dead body of the person named Laxman <\/p>\n
    Dhanva was brought at Rukminibai Hospital by his relatives. The said doctor <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   23<\/span><\/p>\n
    examined   the   victim   and   he   found   that   he   is   already   dead.   Therefore,   he <\/p>\n
    informed  the  police  about  the  incident.  The  police  thereafter  prepared  the <\/p>\n
    inquest panchanama of the dead body. The said doctor carried out the post <\/p>\n
    mortem of the dead body. As per the post mortem report, there were two <\/p>\n
    perforating stab injuries over left side of the abdomen of the deceased. The <\/p>\n
    doctor has described the said injury in his evidence. According to the evidence <\/p>\n
    of the said doctor, the first injury which is mentioned  as “A” in the report was <\/p>\n
    on the left hypochondriac region  of the body. This injury was 2 inches below <\/p>\n
    from left costal   margin and the said injury was \u00bd inch   x   \u00bc inch deep on <\/p>\n
    superior medical medical direction. Injury “B” was over the inter costal line <\/p>\n
    and it was below \u00be inch below the injury mentioned above as “A”. The size of <\/p>\n
    the injury was \u00bd inch x \u00bd inch x 8 inch deep superio medial direction. The <\/p>\n
    said witness has also stated about the bleeding and blood in the abdomen. He <\/p>\n
    has stated that there was a bleeding of over 2 litres of blood. The doctor found <\/p>\n
    that in the small intestine there was cut rupture at 4 sites.  According to the <\/p>\n
    evidence of the said doctor, the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to <\/p>\n
    haemoperitoneum   due   to   perforating   stab   injuries.     The   said   witness   was <\/p>\n
    shown gupti and stated that the aforesaid injuries are possible by the said <\/p>\n
    gupti and stated that such injuries are  possible if the person is stabbed twice <\/p>\n
    with this gupti.   In the cross-examination the said doctor has stated that in <\/p>\n
    case   a   person   is   given   treatment   immediately   after   he   suffered   above <\/p>\n
    mentioned injury, the person may survive.   The said witness has denied the <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   24<\/span><\/p>\n
    suggestion that the deceased Laxman died due to the shock of stabbing.\n<\/p>\n
    24.           The prosecution examined one Mangesh  Gaikwad as prosecution <\/p>\n
    witness No.14 at Exh.52.     The said witness has stated that on 24th  October <\/p>\n
    2000 the incident in question took place at about 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. The <\/p>\n
    incident took place at Milind Nagar area at Kalyan. He had gone to the house <\/p>\n
    of his friend Sandip Jadhav. He stated that he, along with his friend, Sandip <\/p>\n
    Jadhav went to the spot of the incident and saw the deceased was lying in a <\/p>\n
    pool   of   blood   resting   his   back   to   the   wall   and   he   was   demanding   water.\n<\/p>\n
    According to the said witness, Yogesh Wagle   gave water to the injured. He <\/p>\n
    took towel which was hanging on the rope and Yogesh Wagle took the victim <\/p>\n
    in a rickshaw to the hospital.   He has stated that he did not know who had <\/p>\n
    stabbed the victim. The said witness was declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
    25.           The   prosecution   examined   Bhagat   Bhangare   as   prosecution <\/p>\n
    witness No.15 who was serving as a PI at the relevant time in Mahatma Phule <\/p>\n
    Police Station, Kalyan.  The said witness has stated  that a complaint filed by <\/p>\n
    Latika was taken by PSI Patil and on the basis of the same he registered Crime <\/p>\n
    No. I-326\/2000. He deputed PSI Shirsagar to bring the accused in the police <\/p>\n
    station and he directed PSI Kamble to prepare the inquest panchanama on the <\/p>\n
    dead body of the deceased. The said witness visited the spot of the incident on <\/p>\n
    24-10-2000.  The accused Amit Patil was produced  before him by PSI Saghe <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     25<\/span><\/p>\n
    whom he interrogated. The said witness had prepared the arrest panchanama <\/p>\n
    on  24th  October, 2000. The clothes of the deceased were brought before the <\/p>\n
    said   witness on 25th  October, 2000 by Constable Dhamal.   The said police <\/p>\n
    officer also recorded the statement of the  witness Alka.  The said witness has <\/p>\n
    stated that on 27th  October, 2000, the accused Shivaji was in P.C.R. and he <\/p>\n
    showed his willingness to produce gupti and accordingly in a   Government <\/p>\n
    jeep he travelled along with accused Shivaji and panch witnesses. From the <\/p>\n
    grass,   the   accused     Shivaji   produced   one   gupti     stained   with   blood.     The <\/p>\n
    discovery panchanama was accordingly prepared.\n<\/p>\n
    26.            So far as the evidence of complainant PW1 Latika as well as the <\/p>\n
    evidence   of   PW   2   Alka   and   evidence   of   PW     3   Arvind   is   concerned,   it   is <\/p>\n
    required to be noted that each of these witnesses has  witnessed the incident <\/p>\n
    and they are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. Witness Latika has <\/p>\n
    given full particulars about the incident in question.     Her presence in   the <\/p>\n
    house   at   about   8.00   p.m.   is   most   natural   as   she   is   the   housewife   and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, naturally her presence at that time cannot be ruled out.  As per the <\/p>\n
    evidence   of   the   said   witness,   the   incident   took   place   in   her   presence   and <\/p>\n
    accused Shivaji stabbed her husband in her presence.  As per the evidence of <\/p>\n
    the said witness, she and her daughter Alka went to rescue her husband but in <\/p>\n
    vain and the accused thereafter ran away. The evidence of the said witness <\/p>\n
    gets complete corroboration from the evidence of PW 2, who is the daughter <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    26<\/span><\/p>\n
    of deceased Laxman. The said witness Alka has also narrated the incident and <\/p>\n
    she has stated that she and her mother i.e. PW1 tried to rescue her father and <\/p>\n
    accused No.1 stabbed her father twice. The said witness has clearly admitted <\/p>\n
    in her cross-examination when a question was put to her that she was having <\/p>\n
    love affair with accused No.1 and her family members did not like her  love <\/p>\n
    affair with the accused. The evidence of PW 1 and 2, in our view, is absolutely <\/p>\n
    trustworthy  and   there   is  no  reason  to  disbelieve   the   said  witnesses  simply <\/p>\n
    because   they   are   relative   of   the   deceased   and   that   they   are   interested <\/p>\n
    witnesses.   It   is   a   well   settled   proposition   of   law   that   simply   because   the <\/p>\n
    witness is   a relative, the evidence of the said witness cannot be discarded on <\/p>\n
    the said ground, provided the same is trustworthy.  PW 2 Alka admitted her <\/p>\n
    affairs with accused No.1 and she has stated that her father told accused No.1 <\/p>\n
    that he should talk outside the house.  The said aspect is also corroborated by <\/p>\n
    PW   3   Arvind.   In   our   view,   there   is   absolutely   no   reason   to   discard   the <\/p>\n
    evidence   of   PW1   and   PW2   who   have   witnessed   the   incident   and   their <\/p>\n
    presence in the house is absolutely natural one. Similarly, so far as PW 3 is <\/p>\n
    concerned,   he has also given similar version and pointed out as to how the <\/p>\n
    incident in question has happened. All the aforesaid witnesses have seen the <\/p>\n
    incident and stated that accused Shivaji gave two gupti blows to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
    The said version is even corroborated by medical evidence as the doctor has <\/p>\n
    also certified that there were two blows inflicted on the deceased and the said <\/p>\n
    blows were possible by weapon in question i.e. gupti. The evidence of the said <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  27<\/span><\/p>\n
    witness is, therefore, clearly corroborated by the doctor’s evidence.   In our <\/p>\n
    view,  there   is  absolutely  no  reason  to   doubt  the   evidence  of  the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
    three witnesses in any manner. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for <\/p>\n
    appellant, that the two witnesses i.e. PW 12 and PW 14  have given different <\/p>\n
    versions in their evidence  as the said witnesses have stated that none of the <\/p>\n
    relatives   were   present   at  the   relevant   time.   PW  12   has  stated   that  on  the <\/p>\n
    relevant day he along with his friend Sandip Wagle, Mangesh Gaikwad and <\/p>\n
    Sandip Kesarkar were proceeding towards their house and at that time they <\/p>\n
    witnessed   the  incident.  The   said   witness  has  stated   that  he   had   taken  the <\/p>\n
    deceased  to the hospital and that the accused were not present on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
    According to the said witness, he was in the company of Mangesh Gaikwad, <\/p>\n
    another friend. The said witness Mangesh Gaikwad is declared as hostile by <\/p>\n
    the prosecution and in our view the evidence of the said witness is not at all <\/p>\n
    believable.  It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that <\/p>\n
    when there are two sets of evidence, one in favour of the accused should be <\/p>\n
    believed but when the evidence of PW 14 is taken out from consideration, as <\/p>\n
    it is clear that he  has resorted to falsehood though it is true that PW 12 is not <\/p>\n
    declared hostile, his evidence shows that one person was found sitting and <\/p>\n
    resting his back to the wall and blood was oozing from his stomach. The said <\/p>\n
    witness   has   admitted   in   his   cross-examination   that   Mangesh   Gaikwad   had <\/p>\n
    taken the towel from the house of the deceased but he did not see anybody in <\/p>\n
    the house.   Though in his   examination in chief he has stated that in one <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    28<\/span><\/p>\n
    rickshaw he along with his friends took the victim at the hospital but in the <\/p>\n
    cross-examination  in  para   3   he   has  admitted   that   he   had  not   gone   to   the <\/p>\n
    hospital but his friend Yogesh had gone to the hospital.  In our view, evidence <\/p>\n
    of PW 12 cannot be said to be trustworthy and it is no doubt true that he has <\/p>\n
    not  been  declared   hostile   but  considering   the   evidence   as  a   whole,  in  our <\/p>\n
    view, on the basis of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW3, the prosecution <\/p>\n
    can be said to have established their case beyond reasonable doubt against the <\/p>\n
    appellant-accused.\n<\/p>\n
    27.<\/p>\n
                  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  at  this  stage   relied   upon the <\/p>\n
    decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harchand Singh and another vs.  <\/p>\n
    State of Haryana1  wherein the Supreme Court has held that when there are <\/p>\n
    two sets of evidence, one in favour of the accused should be accepted.   In the <\/p>\n
    instant case, PW 1 and PW 3 have clearly given full description of the incident <\/p>\n
    and their presence in the scene of offence was most natural.  It is not possible <\/p>\n
    to believe that, as  suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, none of <\/p>\n
    the so-called eye witnesses were present in the house. As pointed out earlier, <\/p>\n
    the incident happened at about 8   p.m.   Naturally presence of witness No.1 <\/p>\n
    can be said to be most natural at the house. Similar is the position so far as <\/p>\n
    the other witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3 are concerned. So far as PW 12   is <\/p>\n
    concerned, he has clearly stated that he is not aware  about any love affair of <\/p>\n
    the   daughter   of   the   victim   with   the   appellant.     As    against   this,   PW2  has
\n    1 (1974) 3 SCC 397<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    29<\/span><\/p>\n
    clearly stated  in her evidence that she had an affair with the accused and her <\/p>\n
    father was annoyed   because of such relationship and in the past her father <\/p>\n
    has   scolded   the   accused   which   ultimately   resulted   into   the   unfortunate <\/p>\n
    incident   on   the   relevant   day.     Considering   the   aforesaid   aspect,   it   is   not <\/p>\n
    possible to accept the say of the learned counsel for the appellant that we <\/p>\n
    should accept the evidence of PW 12 and discard the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2 <\/p>\n
    and 3, especially when, in our view, presence of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at the <\/p>\n
    house is most natural at their house and their evidence is corroborated by the <\/p>\n
    medical   evidence   as   regards   the   fatal   blows   inflicted   on   the   victim.   The <\/p>\n
    learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   also   relied   upon   the   decision  of   the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the case of  Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana1  wherein it is <\/p>\n
    held that when there are two pieces of evidence in regard to the same fact, <\/p>\n
    both uncontroverted and uncorroborated, the benefit of doubt must go to the <\/p>\n
    accused.\n<\/p>\n
    28.           Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant <\/p>\n
    that the towel was wrapped by PW 12 and PW 14. It is required to be noted <\/p>\n
    that PW 14 has stated that he took towel which was hanging on the rope and <\/p>\n
    tied the towel on the stomach of the injured. The said witness has already <\/p>\n
    been declared as hostile. His evidence is not at all believable. It is true that the <\/p>\n
    presence of towel is noticed at the time when the deceased was brought to the <\/p>\n
    hospital.   Simply   because   PW   Nos.   1,   2   and   3   have   not   stated   anything
\n    1 (2002) 10 SCC 461<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   30<\/span><\/p>\n
    regarding towel, in our view, it is not such an omission by which their  entire <\/p>\n
    evidence   can   be   discarded,   if   otherwise   their   evidence   is   found   to   be <\/p>\n
    trustworthy.   In our view, the prosecution has succeeded  in proving its case <\/p>\n
    beyond reasonable doubt in view of the unimpeachable trustworthy evidence <\/p>\n
    of prosecution witness Nos. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
    29.           So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant <\/p>\n
    that the panch witnesses are interested witnesses, it is required to be noted <\/p>\n
    that two of the witnesses were knowing the deceased.   Simply because they <\/p>\n
    were knowing the deceased itself is not a ground to discard the version of the <\/p>\n
    panch witnesses.   So far as the panchanama regarding recovery of the clothes <\/p>\n
    of the accused is concerned, he had taken the panchas at his house and from <\/p>\n
    the cupboard the said clothes were recovered.   So far as recovery of article <\/p>\n
    used in the offence i.e. gupti, no doubt the same is recovered near a public <\/p>\n
    toilet. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that it <\/p>\n
    was   hidden   in   the   grass   and   it   was   found   out   after   about   five   days.\n<\/p>\n
    Subsequently even as per the evidence of the doctor, the injury in question is <\/p>\n
    possible   by   the   aforesaid   weapon   i.e.   gupti.     The   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    appellant has submitted that if recovery is from a place which is accessible to <\/p>\n
    public, no reliance can be placed on such evidence.   He has relied upon the <\/p>\n
    decision of the Supreme Court in the case of  Trimbak vs. State  of Madhya  <\/p>\n
    Pradesh1<\/a> wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
    1 AIR 1954 SC 39<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  31<\/span><\/p>\n
             “4.    It is settled law that the presumption of the innocence
\n             of an accused person is reinforced by an order of acquittal <\/p>\n
             and  a heavy onus rests on  the  prosecution in  an appeal
\n             from such an order to prove that the order is manifestly <\/p>\n
             erroneous. The High Court seems to have approached the
\n             case as if it was considering an appeal preferred against his
\n             conviction by an accused person.  The Magistrate came to
\n             the  conclusion  that the  witnesses for  the discovery were
\n             interested in the prosecution and were not on good terms <\/p>\n
             with the appellant, that the kangi from where the property
\n             is   said   to   have   been   taken   was   in   the   open   and   easily
\n             accessible to all the sundry and that in these circumstances
\n             it was not safe to hold that the place was in the possession
\n             of the accused or that the property was recovered from his <\/p>\n
             possession.   The   learned   Judges   in   the   High   Court,
\n             however, took the view that the ornaments belonging to <\/p>\n
             the complainant were taken out by the respondent from
\n             the field of Namdeo Anand and that the respondent having
\n             given no explanation regarding his knowledge of the place <\/p>\n
             from   which   the   ornaments   were   taken   out,   it   must   be
\n             presumed that he must have kept the ornaments there. It
\n             was further held that the fact that the field did not belong
\n             to   the   respondent  and   that   the   place   was  accessible     to
\n             others would not show that the ornaments were not in his <\/p>\n
             possession but were kept by someone else,  in the absence
\n             of   a   statement   from   the   respondent   explaining   the <\/p>\n
             circumstances   under   which   he   came   to   know   about   the
\n             ornaments.\n<\/p>\n
             6.   When   the   field     from   which   the   ornaments   were <\/p>\n
             recovered as an open one, and accessible to all and sundry,
\n             it is difficult to  to hold positively that the accused was in
\n             possession of these articles. The fact of recovery   by the
\n             accused is compatible with the circumstance of somebody
\n             else  having  placed  the  Articles  there  and of  the  accused
\n             somehow   acquiring   knowledge   about   their   whereabouts <\/p>\n
             and that being so,  the fact of discovery cannot be regarded
\n             as conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of
\n             these articles.”\n<\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance of the decision <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     32<\/span><\/p>\n
    of  the   Supreme  Court  in the  case   of  Kora Khasi  vs.   State  of  Orissa1  and   a <\/p>\n
    decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Jaysingh   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra2  in <\/p>\n
    support of his argument as regards recovery of  articles from an open place. In <\/p>\n
    the instant case, though it is true that the recovery is made after five days of <\/p>\n
    the incident, the weapon used in the offence i.e. gupti was not found at open <\/p>\n
    place  but it was found in a hidden place which was not accessible to others.\n<\/p>\n
    30.            The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that   while <\/p>\n
    considering the evidence  relating to recovery, Courts should exercise utmost <\/p>\n
    caution and care.   To fortify his submission, the learned counsel has relied <\/p>\n
    upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Himachal Pradesh  <\/p>\n
    Administration vs. Om Prakash3 and Sanjay<\/a> vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4.\n<\/p>\n
    31.            The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    doctor has not stated in his evidence that the injury in question is likely to <\/p>\n
    cause   death.     In   order   to   support   his   submission,   the   learned   counsel   has <\/p>\n
    relied   upon   the   judgments     of   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   cases   of  Vadla <\/p>\n
    Chandraiah  vs.  State  of   Andhra Pradesh5,  Chilamakur   vs.  State  o  f Andhra  <\/p>\n
    Pradesh6, Chuttan and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh7  and<\/a> a decision of <\/p>\n
    1   AIR 1963 SC 360
\n    2   1999 Cri.L.J. 1687
\n    3   (1972) 1 SCC 249
\n    4   (2001) 3 SCC 190
\n    5   (2006) 13 SCC 587
\n    6   (1977) 3 SCC 560
\n    7   (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 594<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   33<\/span><\/p>\n
    this Court(Nagpur Bench) in the case of  Vinod s\/o Bapuna Kolhe vs. State of  <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra1. In the instant case, however, the doctor has clearly stated in his <\/p>\n
    evidence in para 9 that the death was caused on account of haemorrhagic <\/p>\n
    shock due to haemoperitoneum due to perforating stab injuries.   The doctor <\/p>\n
    was shown the weapon i.e. gupti and the doctor has opined that the two stab <\/p>\n
    injuries on the person of the deceased are possible by this weapon. In our <\/p>\n
    view, therefore, simply because the doctor has not stated in his evidence that <\/p>\n
    the injuries in question are likely to cause death is no ground for coming to <\/p>\n
    the conclusion that the  appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC <\/p>\n
    but it may fall under Section 304 Part-I or II of the IPC.  Learned counsel for <\/p>\n
    the appellant  has invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    in the case of Nachittar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2 . In the aforesaid case <\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court has held that the medical witnesses did not categorically <\/p>\n
    opine   that   the   injuries   found   on   the   deceased,   collectively   or   individually, <\/p>\n
    were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that all the <\/p>\n
    medical evidence amounts to   is that those injuries found on the deceased <\/p>\n
    were   likely   to   cause   death.  The   Supreme   Court,  therefore,   considering   the <\/p>\n
    facts of the said case found that the   only reasonable inference that can be <\/p>\n
    drawn is that the accused-appellant caused the injuries to the deceased only <\/p>\n
    with the knowledge that he would likely to cause death of the deceased and <\/p>\n
    on that basis conviction was altered from one under Section 302 to that under <\/p>\n
    1 2009  ALL MR (Cri.) 350
\n    2 (1982) 1 SCC 609<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     34<\/span><\/p>\n
    Section 304 Part I of IPC.   So far as the present case is concerned, the doctor <\/p>\n
    has clearly stated that in his opinion the deceased was stabbed twice with the <\/p>\n
    gupti  and according to him it is not true that deceased died of the shock of <\/p>\n
    the stabbing. The doctor has stated that in case a person is given treatment <\/p>\n
    immediately after he suffered the injury he may survive but that itself is not <\/p>\n
    sufficient to hold that the incident will fall under Section 304 Part I. Looking <\/p>\n
    to the injury in question and considering the fact that the accused gave two <\/p>\n
    gupti blows on the stomach of the deceased, in our view, the trial Court has <\/p>\n
    rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    32.          The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   if on the <\/p>\n
    evidence before the Court two views are possible, the view favourable to the <\/p>\n
    accused must be accepted.  In this connection, the learned counsel has relied <\/p>\n
    upon the decision  of the Supreme Court in the case of  Harchand Singh and  <\/p>\n
    another vs. State of Haryana1 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
           “The   function     of   the   Court   in   a   criminal   trial   is   to   find
\n           whether   the   person   arraigned   before   it   as   the   accused   is
\n           guilty of the offence with which he is charged.     For this
\n           purpose   the   court   scans   the   material   on   record   to   find
\n           whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon
\n           the basis of which it is possible to found the conviction of <\/p>\n
           the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with
\n           which he is charged. If in a case the prosecution leads two
\n           sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at
\n           the   other   and   shows  it  to   be   unreliable,  the   result  would
\n           necessarily be that the court would be left with no reliable
\n    1 (1974)3 SCC 397<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   35<\/span><\/p>\n
            and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the
\n            accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have
\n            the benefit of such a situation.” <\/p>\n
    In the present case, it cannot be said that there are two sets of evidence, one <\/p>\n
    favours the prosecution and other favours the accused. As a matter of fact, out <\/p>\n
    of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 12 and PW 14, PW 14 is already declared <\/p>\n
    hostile. So far as PW 12 is concerned, it can be said that he was at the site but <\/p>\n
    considering the overall evidence on record, PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have given full <\/p>\n
    particulars about the entire incident   and the said evidence is sufficient to <\/p>\n
    bring home the charges levelled against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    33.           The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision <\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan1 wherein <\/p>\n
    the   Supreme   Court   has   held   that   when   a   witness   is   not   declared   hostile, <\/p>\n
    defence can rely upon evidence of such witness and it would be binding on <\/p>\n
    the prosecution.  The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the case of   Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari vs. State (N.C.T. Of  <\/p>\n
    Delhi)2, wherein the view taken was that when prosecution witness   is not <\/p>\n
    supporting the accused can rely upon his evidence.   In para 34 of the said <\/p>\n
    judgment it is held as under.\n<\/p>\n
              “34. The learned counsel for the appellant also urged that
\n              it   was   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   the   police   had
\n    1 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1050
\n    2 2005 CRI.L.J. 2569<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  36<\/span><\/p>\n
              requisitioned   a   maruti   car   from   Ved   Prakash   Goel.   Ved
\n              Prakash Goel had been examined as a prosecution witness
\n              in this case as PW 1.   He, however, did not support the
\n              prosecution. The prosecution never declared PW 1 hostile.\n<\/p>\n
              His evidence did not support the prosecution. Instead, it
\n              supported the defence. The accused hence can rely on that <\/p>\n
              evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
    34.           The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   also   invited   our <\/p>\n
    attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of  Sukhram vs.  <\/p>\n
    State of Madhya Pradesh1  wherein it has been held that in view of the version <\/p>\n
    given by the prosecution witnesses which are in conflict with each other the <\/p>\n
    conviction of the appellant under the two charges cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
    35.             In   the   case   of  Pradeep   s\/o   Narayanrao   Rajgure   vs.   State   of  <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra2 this Court has held that when recovery of bloodstained clothes <\/p>\n
    and sword  were made at the instance of  the  accused  and which were not <\/p>\n
    identified by the panch witnesses, such recovery evidence cannot be relied <\/p>\n
    upon to convict the accused in the absence of identification of said articles by <\/p>\n
    the panch witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed <\/p>\n
    reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Manohar   Balaram  <\/p>\n
    Khanavkar  vs.  State  of Maharashtra<\/a>   3  in support of  his  contention. In  the <\/p>\n
    present case, the recovery of gupti was made at the instance of the panchas.\n<\/p>\n
    Similar is the position as regards recovery of the clothes of the accused is <\/p>\n
    concerned.   To buttress the point regarding recovery of clothes, the learned
\n    1 AIR 1989 SC 772
\n    2 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1308
\n    3 2003 All MR (Cri)1609 1609<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    37<\/span><\/p>\n
    counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in <\/p>\n
    the   case   of  Sanjay   s\/o   Keshavrao   Dhote   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra1.     In   the <\/p>\n
    present   case,   when   substantial   evidence   is   available   on   record   regarding <\/p>\n
    recovery of articles supported by overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses on <\/p>\n
    record, in our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant <\/p>\n
    for   the   offence   with   which   he   is   charged.     The   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    appellant, in support of his argument, relied on the disclosure statement.  In <\/p>\n
    this connection,  he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case <\/p>\n
    of  Devidas   and   others   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra2.     In   connection   with   this <\/p>\n
    argument, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the cases  of (i) Thimma vs. The State of Mysore3, (ii) Jaffer  <\/p>\n
    Husain Dastagir vs. The State of Maharashtra4 and the decisions of this Court <\/p>\n
    in the cases of   (i)  Jaysing alias Gangawa Mesraj Kharariya and another vs.  <\/p>\n
    State   of   Maharashtra5  and   (ii)  Ashok   s\/o   Sonaji   Bedke   vs.   State   of  <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra6.\n<\/p>\n
    36.           The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   relied   upon   the <\/p>\n
    judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj and others vs. State of  <\/p>\n
    Haryana7  wherein   the   Supreme   Court   has   held   that   when   no   independent <\/p>\n
    1   2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 2762
\n    2   1982 Cri.L.J. 2189
\n    3   AIR 1971 SC 1871
\n    4   AIR 1970 SC 1934
\n    5   1999 Cri.L.J. 1687
\n    6   2005 ALL MR (Cri) 965
\n    7   2005 CRI.L.J. 2152<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  38<\/span><\/p>\n
    witness, though available, was examined and not even an explanation was <\/p>\n
    sought to be given  for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the <\/p>\n
    prosecution case.  The Supreme Court in the said case has held as under.\n<\/p>\n
             “One   more   aspect   which   deserves   notice   is   that   at   the
\n             alleged scene of offence  no bloodstains were found by the
\n             I.O.   though   he   made   a  search.   The   surmise   of   the   High <\/p>\n
             Court  that the blood stains at the public place would have
\n             disappeared in view of the time gap between the incident
\n             and the I.O’s inspection may not be correct, especially, in
\n             view of the fact that it is a metal road, as shown by P.W.8
\n             in  the   site   plan  and   it  was  night  time.    It  is  difficult  to <\/p>\n
             believe that traces of blood would fade out by the time of
\n             the visit of I.O. This is one of the circumstances that has to <\/p>\n
             be kept in mind while appreciating the prosecution case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision <\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court in the case of  Khima Vikamshi and others vs. State of  <\/p>\n
    Gujarat1 and submitted that the absence of blood on the spot strongly suggests <\/p>\n
    that the incident did not occur in the house as alleged by the family members <\/p>\n
    of the deceased.  However, as discussed earlier, in the instant case, P.W. Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    1, 2 and 3 who were present in the house were examined by the prosecution <\/p>\n
    and simply because no other witness from the vicinity is examined itself is no <\/p>\n
    ground for discarding the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    37.         As regards motive, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied <\/p>\n
    1 (2003) 9 SCC 420<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     39<\/span><\/p>\n
    upon the case of State of M.P. vs. Kriparam1 wherein the Supreme Court has <\/p>\n
    held as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “In this background if we consider the alleged motive, we
\n            notice that the prosecution has stated that there was some
\n            theft   in   the   house   of   PW   4     about   a   month   prior   to   the
\n            incident   in   regard   to   which   PW4   had   complained   to   the
\n            police   blaming  A-1’s family.  The   police   were  investigating <\/p>\n
            the said   case and this was the motive for the murder. We
\n            notice, according to the prosecution case itself that after the
\n            lodging of the complaint and till the date of incident there
\n            had been no untoward incident of any kind between the two
\n            families though they are neighbours. In such a situation it is <\/p>\n
            extremely   difficult   to   accept   that   the   respondent   herein
\n            would entertain a motive to eliminate the son of PW 4 for <\/p>\n
            having made a complaint against him or his family.   Thus
\n            even the motive suggested, in our view, is very weak. It is
\n            based   on   these   facts   available   from   the   evidence   of   the <\/p>\n
            prosecution, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion
\n            that   it   was  not   safe   to   base   a   conviction   on  the   accused,
\n            hence it allowed the appeal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In the instant case, the prosecution has clearly established the motive as the <\/p>\n
    witness Alka was  having love affair with accused-appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    38.           On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   simply   because   related   witnesses   are   there,   their   evidence <\/p>\n
    cannot  be   discarded.  The  learned  APP  has  relied  upon  the   decision of  the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the case of Lala Ram vs. State of Rajasthan2   and submitted <\/p>\n
    that there is no proposition in law that the evidence of the relatives cannot be <\/p>\n
    relied upon by the prosecution.   The learned APP has placed reliance on the
\n    1 (2003) 12 SCC 675
\n    2 (2007) 10 SCC 225<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   40<\/span><\/p>\n
    judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Singh Bhikamsingh Thakur  <\/p>\n
    vs. State of Maharashtra1 and submitted  that simply because the witnesses are <\/p>\n
    related would not result in the mechanical rejection of the testimony of the <\/p>\n
    witnesses.     Settled   norms   of   appreciation   of   evidence   require   that   the <\/p>\n
    evidence of such witnesses is to be assessed with caution.\n<\/p>\n
    39.            In our view, considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution <\/p>\n
    as a whole, it is clear that   the prosecution has proved its case against the <\/p>\n
    appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt.  The appellant-accused gave two <\/p>\n
    gupti blows  on the stomach of the deceased. The said gupti was recovered at <\/p>\n
    the   instance   of   the   appellant-accused.   The   motive     behind   the   murder   is <\/p>\n
    already proved by the prosecution  and the injury sustained by the deceased is <\/p>\n
    also corroborated by the medical evidence. Considering the aforesaid factors <\/p>\n
    into   consideration,   in   our   view,   it   is   established   that   the   accused   had <\/p>\n
    committed   the   aforesaid   crime.   In   our   view,   the   learned     trial   Judge   was <\/p>\n
    perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. We, <\/p>\n
    therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly <\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                    (R.G. KETKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
    1 (2007) 2 SCC 310<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        41<\/span><\/p>\n
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\n                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
\n                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2002<\/p>\n
    Shivaji @Shiva Shrimant Sonawane                                                )<\/p>\n
    Hindu, adult, age 21 years, r\/o Dnyandeo Jadhav Chawl,                          )
\n    near Rationing shop, Milind Nagar, Kalyan (W),                                  )
\n    Dist. Thane (At present detained in Kolhapur Prison                             )…Appellant<\/p>\n
                    vs.\n<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra                                                            …Respondent<\/p>\n
    Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ig                   CORAM:  P.B. MAJMUDAR  &\n                                                                            R.G. KETKAR, JJ.\n                                                                                              \n                                     \n                                           Judgment reserved on:      19th January, 2010\n                                           Judgment pronounced on: 17       February, 2010\n                                                                         th\n                                                                                          \n    P.C.\n\n<\/pre>\n
                For   the   reasons   stated   in   the   judgment,   the   Court   passes   the <\/p>\n
    following order.\n<\/p>\n
             “In our view, the learned  trial Judge was perfectly justified in <\/p>\n
             convicting   the   appellant   for   the   offence   in   question.   We, <\/p>\n
             therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal <\/p>\n
             is accordingly dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                             (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                           (R.G. KETKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>
\n            42<\/span><\/p>\n
                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2002 Shivaji @Shiva Shrimant Sonawane ) Hindu, adult, age 21 years, r\/o Dnyandeo Jadhav Chawl, ) near Rationing shop, […]<\/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-19492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 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\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-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=\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-05T15:40:34+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=\"55 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-05T15:40:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":10892,\"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\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-05T15:40:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 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":"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 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\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-05T15:40:34+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":"55 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-05T15:40:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010"},"wordCount":10892,"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\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010","name":"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-05T15:40:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindu vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 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\/19492","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=19492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}