{"id":200498,"date":"2011-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-05T19:03:12","modified_gmt":"2015-06-05T13:33:12","slug":"siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                        1                         cri appeal 243.99\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n            Siddarth S\/o Narayan Kamble,\n            Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Student,\n            R\/o Ashta, Tq. Kinwat,\n            District Nanded.                               ..    APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                                        (Orig. Accused No. 1)\n\n                  Versus\n                       \n                      \n            The State of Maharashtra,\n            Through Police Station, Mahur,\n            Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.                       ..  RESPONDENT\n      \n\n\n     Shri Jagtap, Advocate h\/f Shri V. D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for the \n   \n\n\n\n     Appellant.\n     Shri V. G. Shelke, A.P.P. for the Respondent\/State.\n\n\n\n\n\n                         CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J.\n                             DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011.\n\n\n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     .      This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of <\/p>\n
     the   Joint   District   and   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Nanded   in <\/p>\n
     Sessions Case No. 191\/1994 dated 21st May, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     The prosecution story in brief is as under :\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             2                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
            The   deceased   Panchasheela   was   residing   along   with   her <\/p>\n
     parents in village Ashta, in Kinwat taluka of   Nanded district.\n<\/p>\n
     Nivratti   (P.W.-2)   complainant   is   the   brother   of   deceased <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.       It   is   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that,   when <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela was taking education at Kinwat four accused use <\/p>\n
     to pay visit to her room and tease her.  They use to write letters <\/p>\n
     to   her,   however,   said   letters   were   destroyed   by   the   deceased <\/p>\n
     fifteen days prior to date of incident.   It is further case of the <\/p>\n
     prosecution   that,   Panchasheela   received   one   letter,   alleged   to <\/p>\n
     have been written by one of the accused in which Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     was given threats that, if at all she marries to any other person, <\/p>\n
     than   the   writer   of   the   said   letter,   her   married   life   would   be <\/p>\n
     rendered   miserable   and   difficult,   because   she   has   committed <\/p>\n
     treachery by refusing to marry the writer.   The said letter had <\/p>\n
     been retained by accused No. 4\/Manoj till Panchasheela’s death <\/p>\n
     and   subsequently   delivered   to   Nivratti   brother   of   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.  It is further case of the prosecution that, contents <\/p>\n
     of   the   said   letter   caused   adverse   impact   and,   therefore,   she <\/p>\n
     committed suicide  by jumping  into  the well in the  field  of her <\/p>\n
     father   at   Ashta   on   02nd   December,   1992,   at   about   12.00   mid <\/p>\n
     night.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     PSI Gaikwad\/P.W. 4 investigated into A.D. No.10\/1992.  He <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     visited the spot of incident.   The spot panchanama was drawn <\/p>\n
     and   other   necessary  steps   were   taken.    P.W.   4  carried  further <\/p>\n
     investigation as per procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     During the course of investigation of said A.D. No. 10\/1992, <\/p>\n
     one   inland   letter   was   produced   to   PSI   Gaikwad\/P.W.4   on <\/p>\n
     27.02.1993.   That letter was received by deceased Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     about 15 days prior to the incident.  According to the prosecution <\/p>\n
     said inland letter contained the threats.   Said letter was seized <\/p>\n
     as per panchanama Exh. 73.  The Investigating Officer sent that <\/p>\n
     letter   to   the   hand   writing   expert   with   the   specimen   hand <\/p>\n
     writing of the four accused for comparison and examination by <\/p>\n
     the hand writing expert.   It is the case of the prosecution that, <\/p>\n
     the   Panchasheela   committed   suicide   since   said   letter   caused <\/p>\n
     severe impact on her mind and led her to commit suicide.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     After   completing   investigation   the   I.   O.   filed   the   charge <\/p>\n
     sheet   U\/Sec.   306   r\/w   Sec.   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code.     The <\/p>\n
     charge was framed against the four accused.   They were given <\/p>\n
     opportunity to put forth their case.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     During the course of trial it was noticed that though the <\/p>\n
     specimen   hand   writing   of   the   accused   was   collected   by   PSI <\/p>\n
     Gaikwad and was sent to the hand writing expert.  There was no <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     report and opinion of the hand writing expert.  Therefore, the I.\n<\/p>\n
     O. was summoned to the Court.  Thereafter, the prosecution did <\/p>\n
     produce   on   record   report   of   hand   writing   expert   Shri.\n<\/p>\n
     Biradar\/P.W. 5.  The P.W. 5 opined that disputed hand writing in <\/p>\n
     the said inland letter is of Sidharth i. e. appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The   Trial   Court   framed   points  for  its  determination  and <\/p>\n
     after   full   fledged   trial   convicted   the   appellant   herein   for   the <\/p>\n
     offence   punishable   U\/Sec.   306   of   Indian   Penal   Code   and <\/p>\n
     sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to <\/p>\n
     pay fine of Rs. 2,000\/- in default to suffer further  R. I. for six <\/p>\n
     months.     However,   other   three   accused   persons   came   to   be <\/p>\n
     acquitted from all the charges.  The appellant herein was in the <\/p>\n
     custody  from  02nd  March, 1993 to  19th March,  1993 and said <\/p>\n
     period is given set off to the appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     In   this   case   the   material   evidence   collected   by   the <\/p>\n
     prosecution is opinion of the hand writing expert at Exhibit – 121.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted <\/p>\n
     that,   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution   witness   suffers   from <\/p>\n
     omission,   material   contradictions   and   exaggerations   and, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   same   is   not   trustworthy.     The   counsel   invited   my <\/p>\n
     attention to the contents of A. D. report and also complainant <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     and   also   to   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   and <\/p>\n
     submitted that, when A.D. was registered P.W. 2\/brother of the <\/p>\n
     deceased has not stated anything against any of the accused.  On <\/p>\n
     the contrary his case was that, Panchasheela now deceased was <\/p>\n
     of   hot   tempered   and   she   committed   suicide.     He   has   no   any <\/p>\n
     suspicion  about  anybody.    The  counsel   further   submitted  that, <\/p>\n
     the alleged recovery of the letter from the accused No. 4\/Manoj <\/p>\n
     after   the   death   of   Panchasheela   and   relying   on   said   evidence <\/p>\n
     conviction   of   the   appellant   cannot   be   sustained.     It   is   further <\/p>\n
     submitted that, P.W. 2 submitted inland letter which is recovered <\/p>\n
     from accused\/Manoj after two and half months after the date of <\/p>\n
     incident.  It is further submitted that in his complaint P.W. 2 has <\/p>\n
     never stated that the appellant herein was teasing and visiting to <\/p>\n
     the   room   of   the   Panchasheela,   when   she   was   prosecuting   her <\/p>\n
     studies at Kinwat and at the relevant time staying in the hostel.\n<\/p>\n
     The sum and substance of the argument of the counsel for the <\/p>\n
     appellant   is   that,   merely   relying   on   the   letter   which   was <\/p>\n
     recovered   from   the   Manoj\/accused   No.   4,   conviction   in   case   of <\/p>\n
     appellant should not have been there.   It is not the case of the <\/p>\n
     prosecution that, the said letter is recovered from the house of <\/p>\n
     the deceased or from her parents. The counsel for the appellant <\/p>\n
     further submitted that, entire prosecution story is vague.   The <\/p>\n
     evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   suffers   from   material <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           6                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     discrepancies and prosecution has not dealt with the case with <\/p>\n
     fair   approach.     Therefore,   the   counsel   for   the   appellant   would <\/p>\n
     submit that, this appeal may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    On  the  other   hand,  learned   Additional   Public  Prosecutor <\/p>\n
     appearing for the state submitted that, the Sessions Court has <\/p>\n
     given cogent reasons while convicting the appellant.   Therefore, <\/p>\n
     this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and <\/p>\n
     order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     11.    I have given due consideration to the rival submissions.  I <\/p>\n
     have carefully perused the impugned judgment, entire material <\/p>\n
     placed on record by the appellant and also original record and <\/p>\n
     proceedings   received   from   the   Trial   Court.     The   entire <\/p>\n
     prosecution story revolves around the letter at Exh. 130.   It is <\/p>\n
     also   the   prosecution   case   that   said   letter   is   recovered   from <\/p>\n
     Manoj\/accused   No.   4   after   the   date   of   incident.     The   careful <\/p>\n
     perusal of the impugned judgment, letter Exhibit 130, it clearly <\/p>\n
     emerges   that,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   is   mainly   based <\/p>\n
     upon Exhibit  130. The  Trial  Court  in para  13 has commented <\/p>\n
     upon the Exhibit 130, and the contents of the letter and recorded <\/p>\n
     the   conclusion   that   writer   of   the   said   letter   did   not   like <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela’s marriage being performed with any other person <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     than   him   because   he   was   having   love   with   Panchasheela.\n<\/p>\n
     Instead of this Panchasheela was going to be married with some <\/p>\n
     other person.  The letter further contains that, Panchasheela had <\/p>\n
     promised in written to marry him, but the writer got annoyed <\/p>\n
     because   she   did   not   keep   that   word.     The   inland   letter   does <\/p>\n
     contain the threats by the writer to Panchalsheela that, he would <\/p>\n
     never   allow   her   to   lead   happy   married   life,   but   would   always <\/p>\n
     create the trouble and put thorns in her way.   If the letter at <\/p>\n
     Exhibit 130 is read as a whole it does appear that the writer had <\/p>\n
     the firm determination to give trouble to Panchasheela in case <\/p>\n
     she   marries   with   a   person   other   than   the   writer.   (emphasis <\/p>\n
     supplied).\n<\/p>\n
            Therefore,   it   appears   from   the   perusal   of   the   impugned <\/p>\n
     judgment that, the Trial Court after perusal of the said letter <\/p>\n
     reached to the conclusion that, it is the firm determination of the <\/p>\n
     writer to give trouble to Panchasheela in case she marries with a <\/p>\n
     person other than the writer.  It is not in dispute that, said letter <\/p>\n
     was written by the writer of the said letter on 14.07.1992 and as <\/p>\n
     per   the   prosecution   case   the   Panchasheela,   now   deceased <\/p>\n
     committed   suicide   in   the   night   intervening   between   02nd   and <\/p>\n
     03rd   December,   1992.     It   is   also   not   in   dispute   that   at   the <\/p>\n
     relevant   time,   when   Panchasheela   committed   suicide,   she   was <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     staying in her parents house.  She was not at Kinwat and it has <\/p>\n
     come in the evidence of P.W. 2\/complainant that six months prior <\/p>\n
     to   the   date   of  incident   she   is   at     her   parents   home   at   village <\/p>\n
     Ashta, Tq. Kinwat.   The prosecution case is that, Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     was studying at Kinwat and stayed in some hostel along with one <\/p>\n
     other girl in her room.  It is further case of the prosecution that, <\/p>\n
     the   appellant   herein   was   studying   in   11th   class   and   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela   was   studying   in   12th   class.     The   appellant   and <\/p>\n
     other   three   accused   namely   Rajesh,   Vinod   and   Manoj   use   to <\/p>\n
     trouble and tease Panchsheela.   They use to go to the hostel to <\/p>\n
     tease   her.     However,   at   the   cost   of   repetition,   it   has   to   be <\/p>\n
     mentioned   that,   from   six   months   prior   to   the   date   of   incident <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela   was   continuously   staying   with   the   parents   at <\/p>\n
     village Ashta and not at Kinwat.\n<\/p>\n
     12.    The   impugned   judgment   observes   that,   the   specimen <\/p>\n
     writing   of   each   of   the   accused   was   sent   to   the   hand   writing <\/p>\n
     expert and hand writing expert P.W. 5 opined that, the writing in <\/p>\n
     the   letter   at   Exhibit   130   is   by   the   appellant\/Sidharth.     On <\/p>\n
     perusal of entire evidence, it appears that, this is the main basis <\/p>\n
     to convict the appellant\/accused.  However, if the evidence of the <\/p>\n
     prosecution   witnesses   is   perused   in   its   entirety   and   more <\/p>\n
     particularly   the   evidence   of   P.W.   2\/Nivratti   the   brother   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9                            cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     deceased Panchasheela, he has on more than one occasion has <\/p>\n
     stated   in   his   examination   in   chief   and   also   in   the   cross <\/p>\n
     examination that, other accused i. e. accused No. 2 Rajesh and <\/p>\n
     accused No. 3\/Manoj used to write letters to the Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     and   there   was   some   knowledge   to   the   mother   of   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela   and   complainant   about   writing   such   letters.\n<\/p>\n
     However, so far as writing letters by the appellant\/accused prior <\/p>\n
     to   the   date   of   incident   is   not   stated   by   P.W.   2   in   his   entire <\/p>\n
     evidence.     He   has   stated   that   he   has   heard   from   some   other <\/p>\n
     person from his village that, the appellant has eloped love with <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela,   but   he   did   not   enquire   this   fact   from <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.\n<\/p>\n
            Upon perusal of the entire evidence of P.W. 2, who is the <\/p>\n
     star  witness for  the  prosecution, it  appears that, he  has  given <\/p>\n
     greater roll to the Rajesh\/accused No. 2 and he has stated that he <\/p>\n
     use   to   write   letter   and   also   use   to   give   threats   to   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela deceased and also once he came to the agricultural <\/p>\n
     field   of   the   complainant,   since   deceased   Panchasheela   was <\/p>\n
     avilable   there   in   the   agricultural   field   at   the   relevant   time.\n<\/p>\n
     However, the accused No. 2\/Rajesh is acquitted by the Sessions <\/p>\n
     Court along with two other accused who were tried along with <\/p>\n
     the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             10                            cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     13.      Since the conviction is awarded to the appellant U\/Sec. 306 <\/p>\n
     for abetment to commit suicide, it would be relevant to refer to <\/p>\n
     important sections.   Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads <\/p>\n
     thus :\n<\/p>\n
              “107. Abetment   of   a   thing.–   A   person   abets   the <\/p>\n
              doing of a thing, who —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              First.–        Instigates any person to do that thing; or<\/p>\n
              Secondly,– Engages with one or more other prsons
\n              or   persons   in   any   conspiracy   for   the   doing   of   that <\/p>\n
              thing,   if   an   act   or   illegal   omission   takes   place   in
\n              pursuance   of   that   conspiracy,   and   in   order   to   the
\n              doing of that thing; or
\n              Thirdly.– Intentionally  aids, by any  act  or  illegal <\/p>\n
              omission, the doing of that thing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Explanation 1.– A   person   who,   by   wilful
\n              misrepresentation,   or   by   wilful   concealment   of   a
\n              material   fact   which   he   is   bound   to   disclose, <\/p>\n
              voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
\n              or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
\n              doing of that thing.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
              “306. Abetment of suicide.–                  If   any   person
\n              commits   suicide,   whoever   abets   the   commission   of
\n              such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment
\n              of either description for a term which may extend to
\n              ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”\n<\/p>\n
     14.      In   case   of   suicide   how   the   evidence   is   required   to   be <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          11                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     appreciated   has  been  stated   by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court   in <\/p>\n
     number   of   judgments.     In  State   of   West   Bengal   v.   Orilal <\/p>\n
     Jaiswal<\/a>   (1994)   1   SCC   73,   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   has <\/p>\n
     cautioned   that   the   Court   should   be   extremely   careful   in <\/p>\n
     assessing   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   each   case   and   the <\/p>\n
     evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether <\/p>\n
     the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end <\/p>\n
     the life by committing suicide.   If it appears to the court that a <\/p>\n
     victim   committing   suicide   was   hypersensitive   to   ordinary <\/p>\n
     petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common <\/p>\n
     to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, <\/p>\n
     discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly <\/p>\n
     circumstanced   individual   in   a   given   society   to   commit   suicide, <\/p>\n
     the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a <\/p>\n
     finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide <\/p>\n
     should be found guilty.   Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in <\/p>\n
     case of  Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of <\/p>\n
     Delhi)   (2009)   16   SCC   605  had   an   occasion   to   deal   with   this <\/p>\n
     aspect of abetment.  The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning <\/p>\n
     of the words “instigation” and “goading”.  The Court opined that <\/p>\n
     there   should   be   intention   to   provoke,   incite   or   encourage   the <\/p>\n
     doing of an act by the latter.  Each person’s suicidability pattern <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         12                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     is different from the other.  Each person has his own idea of self <\/p>\n
     esteem and self respect.   Therefore, it is impossible to lay down <\/p>\n
     any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.   Each case <\/p>\n
     has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     15.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of  Amalendu Pal @ <\/p>\n
     Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal  reported in  2010 AIR (SC) <\/p>\n
     512,  after   considering   various   earlier   judgments   in   para   15 <\/p>\n
     observed that,<\/p>\n
           “15. Thus,   this   Court   has   consistently   taken   the
\n           view   that   before   holding   an   accused   guilty   of   an <\/p>\n
           offence   under   Section   306   IPC,   the   Court   must
\n           scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of <\/p>\n
           the case and also assess the evidence adduced before
\n           it   in   order   to   find   out   whether   the   cruelty   and
\n           harassment   meted   out   to   the   victim   had   left   the <\/p>\n
           victim with no other alternative but to put an end to
\n           her life.  It is also to be borne in mind that in cases
\n           of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of
\n           direct   or   indirect   acts   of   incitement   to   the <\/p>\n
           commission of suicide.   Merely on the allegation of
\n           harassment without their being any positive action
\n           proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of
\n           the   accused   which   led   or   compelled   the   person   to
\n           commit   suicide, conviction  in  terms  of  Section  306
\n           IPC is not sustainable.”\n<\/p>\n
           “16. In order to bring a case within the purview of <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
           Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide
\n           and in the commission of the said offence, the person <\/p>\n
           who   is   said   to   have   abetted   the   commission   of
\n           suicide must have played an active role by an act of
\n           instigation or by doing certain act  to facilitate  the <\/p>\n
           commission   of   suicide.     Therefore,   the   act   of
\n           abetment   by   the   person   charged   with   the   said
\n           offence   must   be   proved   and   established   by   the
\n           prosecution   before   he   could   be   convicted   under <\/p>\n
           Section 306 IPC.”\n<\/p>\n
     16.<\/p>\n
           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh <\/p>\n
     v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 has reiterated the legal <\/p>\n
     position as regards Section 306 IPC which is long settled in para <\/p>\n
     12 and 13.  Para 12 and 13 reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
           “12. Abetment   involves   a   mental   process   of <\/p>\n
           instigation   a   person   or   intentionally   aiding   that
\n           person in doing of a thing.   In cases of conspiracy
\n           also it would involve that mental process of entering <\/p>\n
           into   conspiracy   for   the   doing   of   that   thing.     More
\n           active role which can be described as instigating or
\n           aiding   the   doing   of   a   thing   is   required   before   a
\n           person can be said to be abetting the commission of <\/p>\n
           offence under Section 306 IPC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           13. In State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal<\/a> this Court
\n           has   observed   that   the   courts   should   be   extremely
\n           careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of
\n           each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for
\n           the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out
\n           to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
            by committing suicide.   If it transpires to the court
\n            that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive <\/p>\n
            or   ordinary   petulance,   discord   and   differences   in
\n            domestic life quite common to the society to which
\n            the victim belongs and such petulance, discord and <\/p>\n
            differences were not expected to induce a similarly
\n            circumstances   individual   in   a   given   society   to
\n            commit  suicide,  the  conscience   of  the   court   should
\n            not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused <\/p>\n
            charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be
\n            found guilty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17.    Upon   perusal   of   the   judgments   of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme <\/p>\n
     Court cited supra, it is required to be borne in mind that in cases <\/p>\n
     of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or <\/p>\n
     indirect   acts   to   the   commission     of   suicide.     Merely   on   the <\/p>\n
     allegations of harassment without there being any positive action <\/p>\n
     proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused <\/p>\n
     which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction <\/p>\n
     in terms of Sec. 306 of I. P. Code is not sustainable.   Therefore, <\/p>\n
     what   is   required   is   that,   unless   there   is   any   positive   action <\/p>\n
     proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused <\/p>\n
     which led or compelled the person to commit suicide conviction <\/p>\n
     U\/Sec. 306 is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     18.    In   this   background   it   would   be   appropriate   to   scan   the <\/p>\n
     evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses.     According   to   the <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     prosecution   story   as   stated   earlier   Panchasheela   committed <\/p>\n
     suicide   in   the   intervening   night   between   02nd   and   03rd <\/p>\n
     December, 1992.  On the next date i. e. on 03rd December, 1992 <\/p>\n
     P.W.2\/Nivratti brother of the deceased Panchasheela went to the <\/p>\n
     police station and stated in his report that on 02nd December, <\/p>\n
     1992 during night time at about 12.00 a.m. Panchasheela (now <\/p>\n
     deceased) told her sister Trisheela that I am going out to answer <\/p>\n
     the nature’s call.  She did not return back.  My father got up at <\/p>\n
     about 5.00 a.m. in the morning saw that the door of the house <\/p>\n
     from   the   Western   side   is   open.     Then   father   awakened   my <\/p>\n
     mother,   sister   and   started   asking   whether   Panchasheela   has <\/p>\n
     gone.  Complainant along with father and other persons from the <\/p>\n
     village   went  to  near  by  fields  and   other   places  and  ultimately <\/p>\n
     they found that Panchasheela’s dead body in the well which is <\/p>\n
     situated   in   their   own   agricultural   land.     They   saw   that <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela’s sandle and one white cloth is lying near by that <\/p>\n
     well.   Thereafter, they called other persons from the village and <\/p>\n
     narrated the incident.\n<\/p>\n
           P.W.   2   Nivratti   further   stated   that,   my   sister     went   to <\/p>\n
     answer the call of nature and perhaps died by falling in the well.\n<\/p>\n
     My sister was hot tempered and she was not use to tolerate any <\/p>\n
     irrelevant talk.  I do not know how she has fallen in the well and <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            16                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     I have no suspicion or doubt about anybody.\n<\/p>\n
     19.    Therefore, the report of the Nivratti which was recorded on <\/p>\n
     03.12.1992 at police station does show that,  the  brother  of the <\/p>\n
     deceased   Panchasheela   did   not   express   slightest   doubt   or <\/p>\n
     suspicion about any of the accused persons.  He has categorically <\/p>\n
     stated   in   his   statement   that,   sister   of   the   P.W.   2   was   hot <\/p>\n
     tempered and she was not accustomed to tolerate irrelevant talk.\n<\/p>\n
     20.    It further appears that on the basis of the statement of the <\/p>\n
     Nivratti, A.D. was registered.   It further appears that on 29th <\/p>\n
     February, 1993, one Mr. Anil Narayanrao Gaikwad, PSI, Police <\/p>\n
     Station   Mahur   has   lodged   the   complaint   with   police   station <\/p>\n
     stating therein that after recording the statement of Nivratti on <\/p>\n
     03.12.1992,   this  officer   made   enquiry   with  the   relatives  of  the <\/p>\n
     deceased and upon enquiry he found that, fifteen days prior to <\/p>\n
     the   date   of   the   incident   Panchasheela   did   received   one <\/p>\n
     anonymous letter in which it was written that I will see that how <\/p>\n
     you can perform the marriage, you have treached  me.  You have <\/p>\n
     finished   me   and   I   will   see   that   your   life   is   spoiled   and   upon <\/p>\n
     reading such letter Panchasheela might have committed suicide, <\/p>\n
     because   of   impact   of   said   letter   and   thereafter,   he   sought <\/p>\n
     permission to add Section 306.  He further states that it revealed <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           17                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     from   the   enquiry   with   the   relatives   of   the   deceased   about   the <\/p>\n
     incident   and   relatives   told   them   that   they   have   doubt   about <\/p>\n
     Sidharth   Narayan   Kamble,   Rajesh   Sitaram   Khare,   Vinod <\/p>\n
     Krishnaji   Khare   and   Manoj   Pundalik   Muneshwar   resident   of <\/p>\n
     Ashta   that,   they   might   have   written   letter   to   the   deceased <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.     Therefore,   the   complaint   was   lodged   against <\/p>\n
     these   four   accused   stating   therein   that   by   entering   into <\/p>\n
     conspiracy   and   by   threatening   the   accused   have   abeted   the <\/p>\n
     commission of suicide and, therefore, they are liable to be tried <\/p>\n
     and convicted for the offence punishable U\/Sec. 306, 507 r\/w Sec.\n<\/p>\n
     34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     21.    As   stated   earlier,   it   is   admitted   position   that,   the   said <\/p>\n
     letter   at   Exhibit   130   was   in   the   possession   of   accused   No. <\/p>\n
     4\/Manoj.   According to the P.W. 2 it was handed over to him by <\/p>\n
     Manoj.  Therefore, it follows that on the date of incident or prior <\/p>\n
     to that said letter was in the custody of Manoj.  The prosecution <\/p>\n
     has not brought anything on record to show that said letter was <\/p>\n
     in   the   possession   of   either   deceased   or   her   family   members.\n<\/p>\n
     There  is  only  assertion  of   the  prosecution   witnesses   that  such <\/p>\n
     letter was received by the deceased 15 days prior to the date of <\/p>\n
     incident.     However,   there   is   no   evidence   placed   on   record   to <\/p>\n
     suggest   that   said   letter   was   actually   in   the   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         18                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     deceased and she had read it 15 days prior to date of incident.\n<\/p>\n
     On the contrary, it is the case of the prosecution that, letter at <\/p>\n
     Exhibit 130 was handed over\/recovered from accused No. 4\/Manoj <\/p>\n
     after the date of incident.  It has also come in the evidence that <\/p>\n
     accused   No.   4\/Manoj   is   close   relative   of   the   family   of   the <\/p>\n
     deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     22.    Now it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.\n<\/p>\n
     2 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded.  His evidence is <\/p>\n
     at Exhibit 52.  His statement is recorded before the Court during <\/p>\n
     the trial in the year 1997.  P.W. 2 Nivratti in his examination in <\/p>\n
     chief   has   stated   that,   deceased   Panchashella   his   sister   was <\/p>\n
     unmarried.  At the time of incident she was of 19 years old.  She <\/p>\n
     committed suicide. She  had received  some  letters.   The  letters <\/p>\n
     were   anonymous.     In   those   letters   Panchasheela   was   given <\/p>\n
     threats that her marriage will not be allowed to be performed.\n<\/p>\n
     We   got   only   one   letter   out   of   them.     It   was   with   one <\/p>\n
     Manoj\/accused   No.   4.     After   the   death   of   Panchasheela, <\/p>\n
     Manoj\/accused No. 4 on the next day morning came to me and <\/p>\n
     delivered that letter to me.  When I was writing report regarding <\/p>\n
     her death, Manoj  remanded us of the said letter and produced it <\/p>\n
     before me.   I delivered that letter to PSI during enquiry of the <\/p>\n
     alleged report to the police that Panchasheela committed suicide <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            19                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     in our field, because she was unable to bear allegations of threats <\/p>\n
     in the letter.  At this stage, it would be appropriate to comment <\/p>\n
     about   the   aforesaid   evidence   of   P.W.   2   in   the   examination   in <\/p>\n
     chief.   It is clear that, the complainant according to his version <\/p>\n
     has received letter from Manoj\/accused No. 4  on 03rd December, <\/p>\n
     1992.   Prior to that said letter was not in possession of either <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela or complainant or any other family member of the <\/p>\n
     complainant.  Therefore, the Panchasheela, now deceased had no <\/p>\n
     occasion   to   read   said   letter   or   contents   of   such   letter.       The <\/p>\n
     prosecution   has   utterly   failed   to   bring   anything   on   record   to <\/p>\n
     prove that the said letter was received by Panchasheela and by <\/p>\n
     reading said letter she had impact on her mind and ultimately <\/p>\n
     committed suicide.   Secondly, if said letter was received by the <\/p>\n
     Nivratti on 03rd December, 1992, why there is no mention in his <\/p>\n
     report  to  the  police  station on  03rd  December, 1992 about  the <\/p>\n
     said letter.  On the contrary in his statement on 03rd December, <\/p>\n
     1992, Nivratti stated that as Panchasheela was hot tempered girl <\/p>\n
     and   she   was   not   use   to   tolerate   irrelevant   talk   and   she <\/p>\n
     committed suicide.   He has further stated that, he has no any <\/p>\n
     doubt  or  suspicion   about  anybody.    He   has   not  referred   single <\/p>\n
     word  about  the  letter  or about any  of the accused.   Therefore, <\/p>\n
     conviction based  upon such  evidence  which  is contrary  to  first <\/p>\n
     statement of the Nivratti on 03rd December, 1992 cannot form <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          20                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     basis for the conviction of the appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
     23.    P.W.   2   Nivratti   in   his   examination   in   chief   has   further <\/p>\n
     stated that, his mother told him that Panchasheela was talking <\/p>\n
     about the letter.  Mother told me that Panchasheela was asking <\/p>\n
     for   the   letter,  but  she   was  not   giving  the  letter.    She   was  not <\/p>\n
     getting letter from Manoj.   She was telling the mother to go to <\/p>\n
     Manoj to bring the letter since four days.  This statement of the <\/p>\n
     P.W. 2\/Nivratti appears to be blatant lie, since nothing has been <\/p>\n
     mentioned   by   him   in   his   statement   before   the   police   on   03rd <\/p>\n
     December, 1992 about what is told by his mother and by him to <\/p>\n
     the mother.   On the contrary this witness further stated in his <\/p>\n
     examination in chief that, mother told him that at the relevant <\/p>\n
     time Panchasheela was in angry mood and, therefore, she might <\/p>\n
     have jumped in the well.   He has further admitted that he did <\/p>\n
     lodge report with the police station Mahur.  He also identified his <\/p>\n
     signature and its contents.  Therefore, the earliest opportunity to <\/p>\n
     tell the truth was on 03rd December, 1992 and rightly the P.W. 2 <\/p>\n
     had  stated to the police officer that the Panchasheela was hot <\/p>\n
     tempered girl and he had no suspicion or doubt about anybody.\n<\/p>\n
     There   is   no   mention   about   said   letter   in   his   report   on   03rd <\/p>\n
     December, 1992 to the police officer.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           21                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
            P.W.   2\/Nivratti   has   further   stated   in   his   evidence   that <\/p>\n
     Rajesh\/accused No. 2 and Vinod\/accused No. 3 use to write the <\/p>\n
     letters   and   drop   them   into   post.     They   are   addressed   to <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.     Panchasheela   use   to   get   those   letters   from <\/p>\n
     postman.     My   mother   told   me   that   Panchasheela   was   talking <\/p>\n
     about the letter.  Mother told me that Panchasheela was asking <\/p>\n
     for   the   letters   but   she   was   not   given   letter   by   Manoj.     The <\/p>\n
     aforesaid contention of the P.W. 2 has been reiterated by him at <\/p>\n
     many places in his deposition and also in the cross examination.\n<\/p>\n
     In   his   entire   deposition   he   has   no   where   stated   that,   the <\/p>\n
     appellant Sidharth use to write letter to the Panchasheela (now <\/p>\n
     deceased) and she used to receive such letters.   So far accused <\/p>\n
     No. 1 Sidharth is concerned, general allegations are made in the <\/p>\n
     complaint that Panchasheela told him that Vinod\/accused No. 3 <\/p>\n
     and Sidharth accused No. 1 use to go to her room and tease her.\n<\/p>\n
     It is further stated by this witness that, Rajesh also use to visit <\/p>\n
     to her room and he use to tease her and Panchasheela herself <\/p>\n
     disclosed these things to him.  These are the general allegations <\/p>\n
     made against all the accused.   At this juncture it is relevant to <\/p>\n
     mention that, P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that, since the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela failed in the examination of 12th class, we stopped <\/p>\n
     her education and brought her to our house.   This witness has <\/p>\n
     admitted   that,   six   months   prior   to   the   date   of   incident, <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           22                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     Panchasheela was brought to the village and since then she was <\/p>\n
     staying in their house.  Therefore, whatever has happened during <\/p>\n
     the time when she was prosecuting the studies was six months <\/p>\n
     prior to the date of incident.  Therefore, the general allegations of <\/p>\n
     the   P.W. 2  that  the   appellant   along   with  other  accused   use  to <\/p>\n
     tease the Panchasheela even if assumed to be correct, said cannot <\/p>\n
     be said to be in immediate proximity or soon before the date of <\/p>\n
     incident   and,   therefore,   as   a   result   of   said   teasing   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
            P.W. 2 has also stated in his evidence that, he saw Rajesh <\/p>\n
     accused No. 2 having entered in their field, when Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     was   plucking   the   cotton   crop.     He   gave   some   whistles   for <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.     At   that   time   he   was   in   the   field.     Seeing   him <\/p>\n
     Rajesh went back to his field.  It has also came in the evidence of <\/p>\n
     this witness that in the field Rajesh threatened Panchasheela by <\/p>\n
     showing   knife.     P.W.   2   has   further   stated   that,  “Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     committed   suicide   because   of   the   letters   written   by <\/p>\n
     Rajesh\/accused No. 2.  Some defamatory chits were pasted on the <\/p>\n
     door or our house.  Rajesh\/accused No. 2 had come to our house <\/p>\n
     to sing a Bhajan.  According to me, defamatory chits were pasted <\/p>\n
     by   though,   I   did   not   see   him   doing   so.”   (Emphasis   supplied) <\/p>\n
     Therefore, it follows from the version of this witness P.W\/2 that <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           23                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     Rajesh   was   responsible   for   the   commission   of   suicide   by   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.   Therefore, the  evidence  of the  prosecution  that <\/p>\n
     the letter allegedly written in the month of July, 1992 was in the <\/p>\n
     hand writing of the appellant and, therefore, he is responsible or <\/p>\n
     he has abeted commission of suicide or he had intention to forse <\/p>\n
     the Panchasheela to commit suicide has no force.  The evidence of <\/p>\n
     P.W. 2 totally negativates the story of the prosecution that the <\/p>\n
     appellant   herein   was   responsible   for   the   suicide   of   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela and said has been abated by the appellant.   It is <\/p>\n
     pertinent   to   note   that,   except   appellant   herein   all   the   other <\/p>\n
     accused including Rajesh are acquitted by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
            P.W. 2\/has admitted in his cross examination that, he had <\/p>\n
     not shown letter to the police on 03rd December, 1992.  He does <\/p>\n
     not remember the date when he showed the letter to the police.\n<\/p>\n
     He   further   contends   that   about   8   to   15   days   after   incident   of <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela’s   death,   he   showed   the   letter   to   the   police.     He <\/p>\n
     further   contends   that   my   mother   knows   about   that   letter, <\/p>\n
     however   he   has   no   personal   knowledge   about   the   said   letter.\n<\/p>\n
     This   witness   specifically   states   that,   “it   is   a   fact   that <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela was hot  tempered.   She  could  not  bear   falsecity.\n<\/p>\n
     We stopped her college education about one year before she died.\n<\/p>\n
     Though, she failed Panchasheela had a desire to take education”.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           24                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     (Emphasis supplied).   Therefore, it has clearly appeared in the <\/p>\n
     evidence of P.W. 2 that, the deceased was hot tempered and her <\/p>\n
     education was stopped one year prior to the date of incident.  It is <\/p>\n
     also relevant to mention that one female partner was in the room <\/p>\n
     of Panchasheela and she lived with her in the hostel.   However, <\/p>\n
     the another partner was not examined by the prosecution on the <\/p>\n
     point of teasing by the accused to Panchasheela.   This witness <\/p>\n
     P.W.   2   has   further   admitted   in   the   cross   examination   that, <\/p>\n
     Sidharth\/accused No. 1 was in 11th class and Panchasheela was <\/p>\n
     in   12th   class.     They   have   never   in   the   same   class.     At   this <\/p>\n
     juncture it is relevant to mention that on plain reading  of the <\/p>\n
     said   letter   it   does   appear   that   writer   of   the   said   letter   is <\/p>\n
     classmate of the deceased Panchasheela.  However, the evidence <\/p>\n
     of   P.W.   2   as   stated   hereinabove   clearly   shows   that   the <\/p>\n
     appellant\/accused   was   not   classmate   of   the   deceased <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.     This   witness   has   further   stated   in   the   cross <\/p>\n
     examination   that,   Manoj\/accused   No.   4   is   his   mother’s   sisters <\/p>\n
     son.  This witness further refers to his statement recorded by the <\/p>\n
     police in February 1993.  He has also reiterated his version in his <\/p>\n
     examination in chief that Rajesh and Vinod used to write letters <\/p>\n
     to Panchasheela and she has received those letters and some of <\/p>\n
     them were burnt by her.   That, only one went in the hands of <\/p>\n
     Manoj which he   refused  to give that  to  Panchasheela.   Rajesh <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            25                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     and Vinod were residing at Kinwat.  Therefore, P.W. 2 has never <\/p>\n
     stated that the appellant\/accused Sidharth use to write lettes to <\/p>\n
     the Panchasheela.  The appellant\/accused is only convicted on the <\/p>\n
     basis   of   said   letter   holding   that   the   hand   writing   in   the   said <\/p>\n
     letter is of the appellant\/accused as stated by the hand writing <\/p>\n
     expert\/P.W.   5.     Since   the   other   three   accused   persons   are <\/p>\n
     acquitted   and   more   particularly   accused   No.   2\/Rajesh   against <\/p>\n
     whom the P.W. 2 has unequivocally stated in his deposition that, <\/p>\n
     he   use   to   write   letters   to   Panchasheela   and   also   he   has <\/p>\n
     threatened to Panchashella, has been acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
     24.    The   prosecution   has   examined   Sangita   as   P.W.   3.     Her <\/p>\n
     evidence is at Exhibit 57.  She has stated in her examination in <\/p>\n
     chief that, deceased Panchasheela was the sister of her father.\n<\/p>\n
     Panchasheela died about five years back.  She committed suicide <\/p>\n
     by   drowning   in   the   well.   She   committed   suicide   because   some <\/p>\n
     boys troubled her.   Those boys are four in number.   On careful <\/p>\n
     perusal of the examination in chief of the said witness nothing <\/p>\n
     specific   has   been   attributed   against   the   appellant\/accused <\/p>\n
     herein.     She   has   stated   that   accused   Manoj   was   having   such <\/p>\n
     letter, but he did not give to anybody. Panchasheela was asking <\/p>\n
     said letter to Manoj, but Manoj did not hand over said letter to <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela.  Manoj gave that letter to her mother on next day <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            26                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     of   Panchasheela’s   death.     In   her   cross   examination   she   has <\/p>\n
     reiterated   that   the   letter   was   handed   over   by   Manoj   to   her <\/p>\n
     mother on next day after Panchasheela’s death.\n<\/p>\n
     25.    The prosecution examined P.W. 4 Anil Gaikwad as witness.\n<\/p>\n
     His evidence is at Exhibit 71.   In his deposition he has stated <\/p>\n
     that, during the period from August 1991 to August 1993 he was <\/p>\n
     attached   to   Mahur   police   station   as   PSI.     On   03.12.1992   one <\/p>\n
     Nivratti  came  to  him  and  stated   that, his  sister  Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     committed   suicide   by   drowning.     Upon   his   report   A.D.   No. <\/p>\n
     10\/1992 U\/Sec. 174 of Cr. P. C. was registered.   He investigated <\/p>\n
     said   A.   D.     Visited   the   spot   of   incident   at   village   Ashta   and <\/p>\n
     further investigated into the matter.   Inquest panchanama was <\/p>\n
     prepared.     Dead   body   was   forwarded   for   postmortem <\/p>\n
     examination.     He   recorded   statements   of   the   witnesses.     He <\/p>\n
     recorded statement of Nivratti on 27th February, 1993 in which <\/p>\n
     he stated that, there is suspicion against four persons saying that <\/p>\n
     they   are   responsible   for   suicide   of   his   sister   Panchasheela.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, he filed complaint.  He registered complaint as Cr. No. <\/p>\n
     15\/1993 U\/Sec. 306 of I. P. Code against the four persons namely <\/p>\n
     Sidharth   Kamble,   Vinod   Khare,   Rajesh   Khare   and   Manoj <\/p>\n
     Muneshwar on 28th February, 1993.  The accused were arrested <\/p>\n
     on   01st   March,   1993.     Their   hand   writing   specimen   were <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           27                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     obtained and were sent to hand writing expert and also inland <\/p>\n
     letter was sent to the hand writing expert for his opinion.   He <\/p>\n
     further stated that, as the hand writing expert’s report was not <\/p>\n
     received, nor the inland letter and specimen hand writing of the <\/p>\n
     accused from the office of Government Hand Writing Expert was <\/p>\n
     received.   Therefore, he went to Aurangabad on 28.07.1997 and <\/p>\n
     on   29.09.1997   he   collected   the   documents.     This   witness   has <\/p>\n
     admitted in his cross examination that till the date of recording <\/p>\n
     his   evidence   before   the   Court   he   did   not   produce   any <\/p>\n
     acknowledgement   issued   from   the   Government   Hand   Writing <\/p>\n
     Expert.     He   has   specifically   stated   that,   in   the   statement   of <\/p>\n
     Nivratti   recorded   by   him,   he   did   not   state   before   him   that <\/p>\n
     accused No. 4 had brought and gave inland letter to him.   He <\/p>\n
     further stated that, Nivratti did not tell that, at the time when <\/p>\n
     he   was   writing   report   on   03.12.1992,   Manoj   delivered   inland <\/p>\n
     letter to him and he produced it before the police.  Sangita in her <\/p>\n
     statement before him did not state that, accused persons were <\/p>\n
     showing   knife   to   Panchasheela   or   that   they   were   insisting <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela to allow them to do and were following her at the <\/p>\n
     time   of   easing   or   that   four   accused   were   threatening <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela,   that   they   would   not   allow   her   marriage   to   be <\/p>\n
     performed, or that accused had written letter to Panchasheela.\n<\/p>\n
     She   also   did   not   tell   before   him   in   her   statement   that   either <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          28                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     Manoj delivered one letter to the mother of Panchasheela or that <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela was demanding that letter from Manoj or that he <\/p>\n
     was refusing or that Manoj delivered that letter to her mother on <\/p>\n
     next day after Panchasheela’s death.\n<\/p>\n
     26.    Therefore, upon perusal of the evidence of this witness who <\/p>\n
     was the Investigating Officer in the investigation it is clear that <\/p>\n
     what is stated by the Sangita before Court was not stated by her <\/p>\n
     before   him   during   the   course   of   investigation.     Therefore,   the <\/p>\n
     evidence of Sangita before the Court becomes untrustworthy or <\/p>\n
     rather   improvement.     As   stated   earlier,   P.W.   2   has   filed   the <\/p>\n
     report   on   03.12.1992   in   which   he   has   specifically   stated   that, <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela was hot tempered girl.  She has committed suicide <\/p>\n
     and P.W. 2 has no any suspicion or doubt about anybody.  P.W. 2 <\/p>\n
     has stated that Manoj has delivered letter at Exh. 130 him on <\/p>\n
     03rd December, 1992. However, P.W. 4 has stated in his evidence <\/p>\n
     that, when statement of Nivratti was recorded by him he did not <\/p>\n
     tell said fact to the P.W. 4.   The P.W. 4 has further stated that, <\/p>\n
     P.W. 3 Sangita has also not stated before him that, the letter was <\/p>\n
     delivered by Manoj to P.W. 2 on 03rd December, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     27.    Perusal of the letter itself shows that said letter is written <\/p>\n
     on 14.07.1992.  The incident in question had taken place on 02nd <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            29                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     December, 1992.   Admittedly, the Panchasheela was not staying <\/p>\n
     at Kinwat for prosecuting her studies from more than six months <\/p>\n
     prior to date of incident.  P.W. 2\/Nivratti in his deposition before <\/p>\n
     the Court repeatedly stated that accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 <\/p>\n
     use to write letters to Panchasheela, however, in his statement <\/p>\n
     nowhere he has stated that, present appellant Sidharth who was <\/p>\n
     accused No. 1 has written any letter to Panchasheela and to that <\/p>\n
     effect Panchasheela told him that accused Sidharth has written <\/p>\n
     letter to him.   Admittedly, the letter at Exh. 130 was received <\/p>\n
     from   accused   No.   4\/Manoj   by   P.W.   2\/Nivratti   after   the   date   of <\/p>\n
     incident.     Admittedly,   there   is   nothing   stated   about   the   said <\/p>\n
     letter by Nivratti in his report to the police on 03rd  December, <\/p>\n
     1992.   On careful perusal of the said inland letter at Exh. 130, <\/p>\n
     the  name  of  the   present  appellant  is not   appearing  anywhere.\n<\/p>\n
     The name is written as ‘Premkumar’.   Therefore, upon careful <\/p>\n
     perusal   of   the   entire   evidence   brought   on   record   by   the <\/p>\n
     prosecution,   there   are   material   contradictions,   improvements <\/p>\n
     and   omissions   in   the   evidence   of   the   witnesses   and   material <\/p>\n
     variance in the version of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, therefore,  to <\/p>\n
     sustain   conviction   of   the   appellant   on   such   shaky   evidence   is <\/p>\n
     impossible.   As   stated   earlier,   the   said   letter   is   written   by   one <\/p>\n
     Premkumar and there is no name of the appellant on the said <\/p>\n
     inland letter at Exh. 130.     The Trial Court has reached to the <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             30                            cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     conclusion   that,   the   letter   at   Exh.   130   has   been   written   by <\/p>\n
     accused No. 1\/Sidharth, as this letter has caused an impact on <\/p>\n
     the mind of Panchasheela, she had taken a drastic decision to put <\/p>\n
     an end to her life.  Sidharth has provided her with the instigation <\/p>\n
     caused   by   the   letter   at   Exh.   130   and   hence   he   is   liable   for <\/p>\n
     abetment to commit suicide by her and, therefore, he is guilty of <\/p>\n
     the   offence   U\/Sec.   306   of   the   I.   P.   Code.     With   respect   to   the <\/p>\n
     findings recorded by the Trial Court, it is to be observed that, <\/p>\n
     said finding of the Trial Court are far from settled legal position <\/p>\n
     by catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Even if, it <\/p>\n
     is assumed that, letter at Exh. 130 was written by the appellant <\/p>\n
     to   the   Panchasheela,   (now   deceased),   upon   perusal   of   entire <\/p>\n
     evidence brought on record by the prosecution it cannot be said <\/p>\n
     that, Panchasheela had occasion to read this letter.  In fact, it is <\/p>\n
     the consistent version of all the prosecution witnesses including <\/p>\n
     P.W.   2   that,   the   said   letter   at   Exh.   130   was   in   possession   of <\/p>\n
     accused No. 4\/Manoj and same was delivered after the date of <\/p>\n
     incident.  Nothing has been brought on record  by the prosecution <\/p>\n
     to   suggest   that,   the   said   letter   at   Exh.   130   was   read   by   the <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela and due to contents of that letter she committed <\/p>\n
     suicide.  As per the prosecution story said letter was written on <\/p>\n
     14.07.1992,   Panchasheela   committed   suicide   on   02nd  December, <\/p>\n
     1992.     As   stated   earlier,   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   case   of <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           31                           cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal  reported <\/p>\n
     in 2010 AIR (SC) 512 in para 15 held that, i  t is also to be borne  <\/p>\n
     in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must <\/p>\n
     be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission <\/p>\n
     of suicide.  Merely on the allegation of harassment without their <\/p>\n
     being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on <\/p>\n
     the   part   of   the   accused   which   led   or   compelled   the   person   to <\/p>\n
     commit   suicide,   conviction   in   terms   of   Section   306   IPC   is   not <\/p>\n
     sustainable. (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
            The prosecution has not brought anything on record about <\/p>\n
     what has happened from 14th July, 1992 till 02nd December, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     There is no any evidence muchless specific evidence brought on <\/p>\n
     record   by   the   prosecution   against   the   appellant   that   he   was <\/p>\n
     teasing or instigating the Panchasheela or he has played roll in <\/p>\n
     abetment   of   the   suicide   of   the   Panchasheela.     It   has   come   on <\/p>\n
     record   that   prior   to   six   month   of   the   date   of   incident, <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela was brought from Kinwat to her parental home.\n<\/p>\n
            The another important aspect of the matter is that, it has <\/p>\n
     come in the evidence of P.W. 2\/Nivratti brother of Panchasheela <\/p>\n
     that Panchasheela was hot tempered girl.  In this respect it is to <\/p>\n
     be observed that, that is one of the fact which should have been <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          32                          cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     taken seriously  into  consideration by the   Trial  Court.   In my <\/p>\n
     opinion,   the   Trial   Court   has   not   given   any   thought,   muchless <\/p>\n
     serious thought to these factors.   The Hon’ble Apex Court, time <\/p>\n
     and again reminded that, such facts are required to be taken into <\/p>\n
     consideration while entertaining cases relating to offences which <\/p>\n
     falls U\/Sec. 306 of I. P. Code.\n<\/p>\n
     28.    Therefore,   if   the   prosecution   evidence   is   taken   into <\/p>\n
     consideration in its entirety, the said evidence is not only short to <\/p>\n
     sustain the conviction, but it appears that, prosecution has not <\/p>\n
     approached   the   case   with   truthful   version.     At   the   cost   of <\/p>\n
     repetition, it is to be stated that, Nivratti\/P.W. 2 in his report on <\/p>\n
     the   second   day   of   incident   has   specifically   stated   that <\/p>\n
     Panchasheela   was   hot   tempered   girl   and   she   has   committed <\/p>\n
     suicide.   He has no suspicion or doubt about anybody.   There is <\/p>\n
     no   mention   about   letter   at   Exh.   130   in   the   said   report.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,   taking   into   consideration   the   exposition   of   Hon’ble <\/p>\n
     Apex  Court  in various cases which are  cited  herein above  and <\/p>\n
     taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record <\/p>\n
     by the prosecution, the provisions of Section 107  of the I. P. Code <\/p>\n
     and also Sec. 306 of the Indian penal Code, I am of the opinion <\/p>\n
     that,   the   prosecution   has   utterly   failed   to   establish   the   case <\/p>\n
     against the  appellant\/accused.   Therefore,  the  Trial  Court  was <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          33                             cri appeal 243.99<\/p>\n
     not   correct   in   convicting   the   accused\/appellant   for   the   offence <\/p>\n
     U\/Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.   It cannot be said that by <\/p>\n
     the   said   letter   which   was   allegedly   written,   by   the <\/p>\n
     accused\/appellant   he   had   intention   or   had   abeted   for   the <\/p>\n
     commission of offence.  In my opinion, there is no any direct aid <\/p>\n
     or   abetment   by   the   appellant\/accused,   even   according   to   the <\/p>\n
     prosecution.  Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my <\/p>\n
     opinion,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   deserves   to   be   set <\/p>\n
     aside.   Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 21st <\/p>\n
     May,   1999   passed   by   the   Joint   District   and   Sessions   Judge, <\/p>\n
     Nanded   in   Sessions   Case   No.   191\/1994   thereby   convicting   the <\/p>\n
     appellant for offence punishable under Section 306 of I. P. C. and <\/p>\n
     sentencing him to undergo R. I. for three months and to pay a <\/p>\n
     fine of Rs. 2000\/-, in default, to suffer further R. I. for six months, <\/p>\n
     is   quashed   and   set   aside.     The   appellant   is   acquitted   of   the <\/p>\n
     charges   leveled   against   him.     His   bail   bonds   shall   stand <\/p>\n
     cancelled.  Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned <\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                          [ S. S. SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     bsb\/Jan. 11<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:46:43 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 cri appeal 243.99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 1999 Siddarth S\/o Narayan Kamble, Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Student, R\/o Ashta, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. […]<\/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-200498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSiddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-05T13:33:12+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=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T13:33:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":7432,\"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\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T13:33:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-05T13:33:12+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":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T13:33:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011"},"wordCount":7432,"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\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011","name":"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T13:33:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarth-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Siddarth vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200498","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=200498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}