{"id":209941,"date":"2011-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-24T16:43:13","modified_gmt":"2017-04-24T11:13:13","slug":"shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: D.D. Sinha, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
PPD\n\n                                          1\n                                                                 APEAL.202-04\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2004\n\n      1.    Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble,                     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n            Age : 24 years, Occupation : Business,           ]\n      2.    Shri Vinod Namdeo Salve,                         ]\n            Age : 26 years, Occupation : Labourer,           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n            Both Resident of : 611, Kasewadi                ]\n            Zoppadpatti, Bhavanipeth, Pune.\n                              ig                            ]\n            [Currently in Yeravada Jail]                    ] ..APPELLANTS.\n                                                     [Orig. Accused Nos.1 & 2]\n                            \n                Versus\n\n      The State of Maharashtra                               ]\n      [at the instance of Khadak Police Station,             ]\n             \n\n\n      Pune]                                                  ]..RESPONDENT.\n          \n\n\n\n                                          ..........\n      Ms.Pranali Kakade, Advocate for the Appellants.\n      Mrs.A.S. Pai,  A.P.P.  for the State. \n \n\n\n\n\n                                          ..........\n\n\n                                CORAM :    D. D. SINHA AND\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             A .R. JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                               DATE OF RESERVING THE
\n                               ORDER   :    07TH  JUNE, 2011.<\/p>\n
\n\n                               DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE \n                               ORDER   :     03RD AUGUST, 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>\n                                              2<\/span>\n                                                                     APEAL.202-04\n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J.) :\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n<\/pre>\n
    1.      Heard rival arguments at length on this Appeal preferred by <\/p>\n
    the Appellants\/original accused Nos.1 & 2. Both the appellants were <\/p>\n
    convicted   in   Sessions   Case   No.489   of   2002   vide   order   dated <\/p>\n
    30.12.2003 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.\n<\/p>\n
    By the impugned judgment and order   in Sessions Case No.489 of <\/p>\n
    2002 both the present appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & 2 were convicted <\/p>\n
    for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of <\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life <\/p>\n
    and were directed to pay fine of Rs.500\/- each, in default of payment <\/p>\n
    of fine to suffer R.I. For six months each. In the said Sessions Case, <\/p>\n
    total   six   accused   were   tried.   However,   accused   Nos.3   to   6   were <\/p>\n
    acquitted of all the charges. Admittedly, since date of arrest i.e. since <\/p>\n
    14.7.2002 both the appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & 2 were in jail and as <\/p>\n
    such after the judgment and order of conviction they are still in jail <\/p>\n
    till date.\n<\/p>\n
    2.      After   the   present   Appeal   was   admitted   vide   order   dated <\/p>\n
    29.3.2004, the application for bail was rejected by another Division <\/p>\n
    Bench and as such during pendency of the present Appeal, both the <\/p>\n
    appellants   \/  accused  Nos.1   &  2  are   in   jail.   Reportedly,   there   is  no <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span>
\n                                                                APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    Appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of remaining accused <\/p>\n
    Nos.3 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
    3.      The case of the prosecution narrated in nutshell is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                       One Firoz Kallu Shaikh ( since deceased )   was residing at <\/p>\n
    Kasewadi, Bhawani Peth, Pune in the vicinity of the residence of one <\/p>\n
    girl by name Swati. Allegedly said Swati and deceased Firoz had love <\/p>\n
    affair. However, it was not approved by the present appellant No.1 \/ <\/p>\n
    accused No.1 Ganesh (brother-in-law of Swati) and her mother and <\/p>\n
    as such there were strained relations between the parties on account <\/p>\n
    of such love affair and in fact there were earlier threats given by the <\/p>\n
    present appellant No.1 \/ accused No.1 to the deceased and deceased <\/p>\n
    was   reprimanded     by   accused   No.1   and   was   threatened   of   dire <\/p>\n
    consequences of amputating his hands and legs. Apparently the love-\n<\/p>\n
    affair continued and as such it resulted in doing away with Firoz and <\/p>\n
    as such the incident occurred at the early hours of 11th July, 2002. On <\/p>\n
    the fateful day, deceased Firoz was sleeping on a hand-cart parked by <\/p>\n
    the roadside of the locality where he was staying. His another friend <\/p>\n
    namely Azij Shaikh ( PW-4 ) was also sleeping by his side. At that <\/p>\n
    early hours allegedly present appellants and their other associates –\n<\/p>\n
    total about 5-6 persons, gathered on the spot and started assaulting <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span>
\n                                                                    APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    the deceased Firoz by means of weapons like  sattur, sword etc.  The <\/p>\n
    attack   on   the   deceased   Firoz   was   rather   severe   inasmuch   as   he <\/p>\n
    sustained about 56 injuries on various parts of his body. However, he <\/p>\n
    did notice the presence of present appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & 2  as <\/p>\n
    assailants   along   with   other   persons.   He   noticed   appellant   No.1   \/ <\/p>\n
    accused No.1 possessing a sattur  and appellant No.2 \/ accused No.2 <\/p>\n
    possessing a sharp-edged weapon and also noticed that they inflicted <\/p>\n
    blows   on   his   person   by   the   said   weapons.   He   also   noticed   other <\/p>\n
    assailants   however   could   not   identify   them.   After   the   incident   of <\/p>\n
    assault, all  the assailants ran away from the spot. Due to commotion, <\/p>\n
    persons in the locality  gathered on the spot and carried the deceased <\/p>\n
    Firoz in an auto-rickshaw to Kasewadi Police Outpost. Then the victim <\/p>\n
    was taken to Sasoon Hospital by the police. The Medical Officer of <\/p>\n
    Sasoon Hospital started treatment.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      It is also the case of the prosecution that one API Dhananjay <\/p>\n
    Solankar (PW-10) was on the night-round at early hours of 11th July, <\/p>\n
    2002   and   received   information   regarding   assault   on   the   victim   at <\/p>\n
    Kasewadi locality and reached Kasewadi Outpost and learnt that the <\/p>\n
    injured   had   been   referred   to   Sasoon   Hospital   for   treatment.   He <\/p>\n
    reached   the   Hospital   and   enquired   with   the   Medical   Officer   and <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span>
\n                                                                    APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    found that the injured Firoz was in a condition to give statement and <\/p>\n
    accordingly   recorded   the   statement   of   the   victim.   Allegedly,   in   the <\/p>\n
    said statement, which is subsequently marked as Exhibit-67, names of <\/p>\n
    the present appellants  were specifically mentioned. After recording of <\/p>\n
    the   statement  of   the  victim,   endorsement   of the  attending  Medical <\/p>\n
    Officer (PW-12) was taken and said statement was treated as First <\/p>\n
    Information   Report.   During   the   course   of   investigation,   various <\/p>\n
    panchnamas   were   conducted   including   the   spot   panchnama,   and <\/p>\n
    statements of various witnesses were recorded. While under medical <\/p>\n
    treatment, at about 11 a.m. or so  the victim Firoz succumbed  to the <\/p>\n
    injuries. Inquest panchnama was conducted and postmortem on the <\/p>\n
    dead body was conducted. Offence punishable under Section 302 of <\/p>\n
    IPC was added in the chargsheet.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      During   the   course   of   investigation,   the   appellants   were <\/p>\n
    arrested.   The   clothes   of   the   accused   were   taken   charge   of   under <\/p>\n
    different   panchnamas.   Memorandum   statement   of   the   present <\/p>\n
    appellant No.1 \/ accused No.1 was recorded and in furtherance of the <\/p>\n
    same, weapon allegedly used by appellant No.1 \/ accused No.1 was <\/p>\n
    recovered   under   the   panchnama.   Seized   muddemal   articles   and <\/p>\n
    weapons   were   sent   for   chemical   analysis.   On   completion   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span>
\n                                                                     APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
     investigation, chargesheet was filed against the six accused persons <\/p>\n
     including the present appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     6.      Prior   to   appreciating     the   rival   submissions,   in   order   to <\/p>\n
     determine the points in controversy and to bring down the scope of <\/p>\n
     the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, certain factual <\/p>\n
     position as emerged from the prosecution evidence brought before the <\/p>\n
     trial Court, is as under :\n<\/p>\n
    [i]<\/p>\n
           All the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW-4 Azij Shaikh, PW-5 Raju
\n           Momin and PW-11 Rangnath Jadhav have turned hostile to the <\/p>\n
           case of the prosecution on the aspect of actual involvement of
\n           the   appellants   \/   accused   Nos.1   &   2   in   the   assault   on   the
\n           deceased Firoz.\n<\/p>\n
    [ii]   The   panch   witnesses   i.e.   PW-1   Madhukar   Shinde   for   spot <\/p>\n
           panchnama,   PW-2   Ayub   Shaikh   for   seizure   of   clothes   of   the
\n           deceased,  PW-6  Prafulla Jani for  seizure  of clothes of  accused <\/p>\n
           and PW-8 Altaf Shaikh for memorandum panchnama & seizure
\n           of weapon from accused No.1, had turned hostile to the case of
\n           the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    [iii] PW-10 PSI Dhananjay Solankar recorded the statement of then
\n           injured Firoz Shaikh, who was taking treatment in the hospital
\n           and   said   statement   Exhibit-67   was   treated   as   FIR   and   said
\n           statement is bearing endorsement of the then attending Doctor
\n           PW-12   Dr.Kaustub   Kulkarni   who   had   examined   injured   Firoz
\n           and found him conscious and oriented for giving his statement to <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span>
\n                                                                       APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
          the police.\n<\/p>\n
    [iv] Victim Firoz Shaik died in the hospital while taking treatment at <\/p>\n
          about 11:00 a.m. on 11.7.2002. His postmortem was conducted <\/p>\n
          by PW-13 Dr.Milind Wable and as much as 56 injuries mainly on
\n          the hands, legs and other parts of the body, were found on the
\n          dead body and many of the injuries were linear abrasions   and <\/p>\n
          incised wounds. One of the injuries was chopped wound on the
\n          right little finger. Most of the injuries were on the limbs. As such, <\/p>\n
          death of Firoz Shaikh was homicidal.\n<\/p>\n
    7.<\/p>\n
             Bearing   in   mind   the   above   factual   position,   the   arguments <\/p>\n
    advanced   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   \/   accused   Nos.1   &   2   are <\/p>\n
    required to be considered. Learned Counsel Ms.Pranali Kakade for the <\/p>\n
    appellants   submitted   that   since   the   alleged   eye   witnesses   turned <\/p>\n
    hostile, the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence and <\/p>\n
    mainly on the dying declaration of the victim which is at Exhibit-67. It <\/p>\n
    is submitted that the alleged dying declaration of victim Firoz Shaikh, <\/p>\n
    is   unacceptable   as   there   is   no   corroboration   to   his   statement.   To <\/p>\n
    further   this   argument,   it   is   pointed   out   to   us   that   the   substantive <\/p>\n
    evidence of PW-7 Smt.Farida (mother of the victim) is required to be <\/p>\n
    scrutinized with care and caution inasmuch as she had improved on <\/p>\n
    her   story   than   that   given   before   the   police.   On   this   aspect   it   is <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:40 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span>
\n                                                                     APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    submitted on behalf of the appellants that PW-7 had given the names <\/p>\n
    of other accused also,  as said names were told to her by her son Firoz <\/p>\n
    while taking treatment in the hospital.  On this aspect, it is further <\/p>\n
    argued   that   the   statement   of   Firoz   Shaikh   (Exhibit-67)   does   not <\/p>\n
    disclose the names of other assailants except the names of the present <\/p>\n
    appellants   \/   accused   Nos.1   &   2.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of PW-7 cannot be taken as a corroboration to <\/p>\n
    the dying declaration of victim. Lastly, it is argued that the names of <\/p>\n
    any of the accused persons including the present appellants were not <\/p>\n
    at all mentioned in the medical history given by the brother of the <\/p>\n
    deceased while admitting the victim Firoz Shaikh in the hospital. This <\/p>\n
    factual position can be established from the substantive evidence of <\/p>\n
    PW-12 Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni, further argued.\n<\/p>\n
    8.      Counter   to   the   above   arguments,   learned   A.P.P.   Mrs.A.S.   Pai <\/p>\n
    brought   our   attention   to   the   contents   of   Exhibit-67   –   the   detailed <\/p>\n
    statement   of   the   victim   recorded   by   PW-10   PSI   Solankar.   Learned <\/p>\n
    A.P.P.   also   placed   reliance   on   the   substantive   evidence   of   PW-12 <\/p>\n
    Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni and stated that there is corroboration by way of <\/p>\n
    substantive   evidence   of   PW-12   to   the   contents   of   the   dying <\/p>\n
    declaration.   Apart   from   this,   it   is   also   argued   that   the   dying <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span>
\n                                                                      APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    declaration if inspires confidence as to its authenticity, can alone be <\/p>\n
    taken into consideration for conviction of the accused persons if such <\/p>\n
    dying declaration implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    9.      Considering   the   admitted   factual   position   mentioned   above <\/p>\n
    and   considering   the   rival   arguments,   it   is  to   be   ascertained  in   the <\/p>\n
    present Appeal – as   to whether the dying declaration (Exhibit-67) <\/p>\n
    can be accepted in order to implicate the present appellants \/ accused <\/p>\n
    Nos.1 & 2 in the offence of murder.  In order to answer this point, it is <\/p>\n
    to be seen whether the authenticity of the dying declaration of the <\/p>\n
    victim   i.e.   Exhibit-67   is   established   and   for   this   purpose   the <\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of PW-10 Dhananjay Solankar and that of PW-12 <\/p>\n
    Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni is required to be scrutinized.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       Firstly,   coming   to   the   substantive   evidence   of   PW-10     PSI <\/p>\n
    Dhananjay Solankar, it must be said that on the fateful night he was <\/p>\n
    on   the   night-duty   and   received   information   that   one   person   is <\/p>\n
    assaulted at Kasewadi and as such he reached Kasewadi Outpost at <\/p>\n
    about   3:00   a.m.   on   11.7.2002   and   revealed  that   injured   had  been <\/p>\n
    referred   to   Sasoon   Hospital.   Accordingly,   he   reached   the   Sasoon <\/p>\n
    Hospital and met the attending Doctor and  came to know the name <\/p>\n
    of the injured as – Firoz  Kallu Shaikh. From the Medical Officer, he <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                              10<\/span>
\n                                                                      APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    came to know that the injured was taking treatment in Ward. Sensing <\/p>\n
    the emergency of the hour, he told the Medical Officer that he wanted <\/p>\n
    to record the statement of the injured and requested him to ascertain <\/p>\n
    the condition of the patient  as to whether patient was in a position to <\/p>\n
    give   the   statement   or   not.   On   this   the   Medical   Officer   (PW-12) <\/p>\n
    examined   the   injured   and   found   that   the   said   injured   was   in   a <\/p>\n
    position to give the statement. Apparently, at that time the relatives of <\/p>\n
    the injured were not present in the Ward. According to PW-10, Firoz <\/p>\n
    Shaikh narrated the entire incident inasmuch as on 11.7.2002 he was <\/p>\n
    sleeping on the four-wheel cart in front of the house of his maternal-\n<\/p>\n
    uncle. His friend was with him. At about 3:00 to 3:30 a.m. he was <\/p>\n
    awakened   by   the   fall   of   his   friend   on   the   ground.     That   time   he <\/p>\n
    realized that blood was coming out of his ear and he put hand on his <\/p>\n
    ear. He also noticed presence of present appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & <\/p>\n
    2 armed with weapons and inflicting the injuries on his person. He <\/p>\n
    noticed  that Sattur was in the hand of appellant No.1 \/ accused No.1 <\/p>\n
    and one sharp-edged weapon was in the hand of appellant No.2 \/ <\/p>\n
    accused   No.2.   He   also   noticed   some   other   persons,   but,   could   not <\/p>\n
    identify them. According to PW-10 this was the statement given by <\/p>\n
    the victim – Firoz Shaikh. As both the hands of Firoz Shaikh were <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span>
\n                                                                    APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    bandaged,   his   left   leg   thumb   impression   was   obtained   on   the <\/p>\n
    statement. So also, the endorsement of the attending Doctor PW-12 <\/p>\n
    Dr.Kaustub   Kulkarni   was   obtained.   Said   endorsement   reads   as <\/p>\n
    “patient is conscious and oriented”. The said endorsement is signed <\/p>\n
    by   PW-12     Dr.Kaustub   Kulkarni.   Now   after   going   through   the <\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of PW-12 Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni,   it must be said <\/p>\n
    that   his   evidence   is   corroborating   the   evidence   of   PW-10   as   to <\/p>\n
    recording of the statement and more specifically as to the condition of <\/p>\n
    the injured Firoz Shaikh who was fit to give his statement. It is an <\/p>\n
    admitted position that history given by the patient and his brother <\/p>\n
    was of assault at home at Kasewadi, Bhavani Peth, Pune and assault <\/p>\n
    by sharp and blunt object. On initial examination of the victim, it was <\/p>\n
    found that  he was  bleeding  from  both the  ears,   but, there  was no <\/p>\n
    history   of   unconsciousness   or   vomiting   or     convulsions.   The <\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of PW-12 shows that he examined the patient, <\/p>\n
    his general condition was stable, he was fully conscious and oriented, <\/p>\n
    and his pupils were normal. In para-6 further substantive evidence of <\/p>\n
    PW-12   shows   that   he   was   present   at   the   time   of   recording     the <\/p>\n
    statement   of   the   injured   Firoz   Kallu   Shaikh   on   11.7.2002   in   Ward <\/p>\n
    No.12   in   Sasoon   Hospital.   Prior   to   recording   the   statement   the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span>
\n                                                                       APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    concerned police officer had approached him and asked  him whether <\/p>\n
    the   patient   is   in   a   state   to   give   the   statement   or   not.   He   then <\/p>\n
    examined the patient and came to the conclusion that the patient is <\/p>\n
    fully   conscious   and   oriented   to   give   the   statement.   Thereafter   the <\/p>\n
    concerned   police   officer   started   recording   the   statement   of   the <\/p>\n
    patient. After recording the statement he made endorsement under <\/p>\n
    his signature that the patient is conscious and oriented. It bears his <\/p>\n
    endorsement under his signature.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       Considering the import of the substantive evidence of PW-10 <\/p>\n
    and   PW-12,   as   detailed   above,   in   our   considered   opinion,   said <\/p>\n
    evidence of dying declaration is to be accepted wherein the names of <\/p>\n
    the present appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & 2 are stated and also stated <\/p>\n
    about specific roles played by them as well as weapons used.\n<\/p>\n
    12.       Bearing  in   mind  this   substantive   evidence,   the   evidence   of <\/p>\n
    PW-7 Farida Shaikh (mother of the victim) can be scrutinized. In her <\/p>\n
    substantive   evidence   PW-7   mentioned   that   on   the   relevant   night, <\/p>\n
    Firoz was sleeping on the four-wheel cart of Aziz. At about 3:30 a.m. <\/p>\n
    Rangnath Jadhav came to her house and knocked the door. He told <\/p>\n
    that Firoz was assaulted by Ganesh Kamble, Vinod and Dhanraj More <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span>
\n                                                                   APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    and another boy by name Ganesh. Further, the substantive evidence <\/p>\n
    of   PW-7   is   reproduced   verbatim,   as   appearing   in   para-2   of   her <\/p>\n
    evidence, which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
              ”   …. I rushed there by running and noticed Firoz in
\n              the pool of blood. My son told me that he is assaulted
\n              by Ganesh and 5 to 6 boys. In the hospital also my
\n              son   told   me   the   names   of   Ganesh  Kamble,   Dhanraj <\/p>\n
              Yadaade, Ambadas More, and another Ganesh, Bapu
\n              Londhe. I recognize the said boys. (The witness has <\/p>\n
              pointed out the accused who were sitting in the court
\n              and stated that these are the same boys).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13.      Much   is   argued   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   on   the   above <\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of PW-7 Farida Shaikh (mother of the victim) <\/p>\n
    and it was pointed out that the said witness had improved upon her <\/p>\n
    statement   inasmuch   as   she   has   taken   the   name   of   other   accused <\/p>\n
    persons apart from the name of accused No.1, however, she had not <\/p>\n
    taken the name of accused No.2. Much emphasis was placed on the <\/p>\n
    substantive   evidence   of   PW-7   that   she   knew   regarding   the   assault <\/p>\n
    from Rangnath Jadhav (PW-11). It is an admitted position that said <\/p>\n
    PW-11 Rangnath Jadhav did not support the case of the prosecution <\/p>\n
    regarding any assault and narrating about it to PW-7.  By pointing out <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                               14<\/span>
\n                                                                       APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    this position, it is further argued that this is hearsay and hence not <\/p>\n
    acceptable.   There   is   no   dispute   regarding   this   factual   position   as <\/p>\n
    argued on behalf of the appellants. Moreover, it is apparent from the <\/p>\n
    substantive   evidence   of   PW-10   that   only   the   names   of   present <\/p>\n
    appellants  \/ accused  Nos.1  & 2  were   narrated  by the  victim while <\/p>\n
    giving   his   statement.   However,   according   to   PW-7   her   son   (victim <\/p>\n
    Firoz   Shaikh)   had   given   the   names   of   other   persons   also.   This <\/p>\n
    discrepancy is much highlighted by Miss.Pranali Kakade- the  learned <\/p>\n
    Counsel for the appellants, and it is submitted that on this count itself <\/p>\n
    the     substantive     evidence   of   PW-7   is   not   acceptable.   It   is   further <\/p>\n
    argued that in the police statement PW-7 did not mention that she <\/p>\n
    knew   the   names   of   the   assailants   through     her   son.   According   to <\/p>\n
    learned Counsel for the Appellants this is the omission and which is <\/p>\n
    material rendering the evidence of PW-7 unacceptable. This omission <\/p>\n
    has   not   been   proved   by   the   defence   by   putting   questions   to   the <\/p>\n
    Investigating   Officer.   In   that   event,   the   argument   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellants \/ accused cannot be accepted. All the same, considering <\/p>\n
    arguments and the evidence of PW-7 not corroborating the case of the <\/p>\n
    prosecution as to the contents of the statement of the victim, in our <\/p>\n
    opinion there is sufficient corroboration to such statement by way of <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                             15<\/span>
\n                                                                    APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    substantive   evidence   of   Medical   Officer   PW-12.   In   our   view, <\/p>\n
    consequently the contents of the said statement Exhibit-67 can safely <\/p>\n
    be   relied   upon   and   corroborated   by   the   evidence   of   PW-12   which <\/p>\n
    implicate   the   appellants   \/   accused   Nos.1   &   2   for   the   offence   of <\/p>\n
    murder of Firoz.\n<\/p>\n
    14.       Needless   to   mention   that   for   establishing   a   guilt   of   an <\/p>\n
    accused person, the nature of evidence must be sufficient to prove <\/p>\n
    case   of   the   prosecution   against   the   accused   beyond   a   reasonable <\/p>\n
    doubt. In the case in hand even though all the eye witnesses and also <\/p>\n
    the   panchas   were   declared   hostile,   the   remaining   evidence   is <\/p>\n
    sufficient   to hold the appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & 2 guilty of the <\/p>\n
    offence of murder.  It is not fatal to the prosecution that the names of <\/p>\n
    the assailants are not mentioned in the admission-papers when the <\/p>\n
    victim was brought to the hospital for emergency treatment.\n<\/p>\n
    15.       Needless   to   mention   that   dying   declaration   if   truthful, <\/p>\n
    reliable and trustworthy conviction can be based on this sole evidence <\/p>\n
    without there being any corroboration from other source, however, <\/p>\n
    rule   of   prudence   is   to   seek   corroboration.   The   victim   and   the <\/p>\n
    appellants were knowing each other. There was love affair between <\/p>\n
    PW-3 Swati and the victim, and it was not liked by appellant No.1 \/ <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                               16<\/span>
\n                                                                       APEAL.202-04<\/p>\n
    accused   No.1   and   his   other   relatives.   As   such,   considering   these <\/p>\n
    circumstances, in our view there is nothing to doubt involvement of <\/p>\n
    the appellants \/ accused Nos.1 & 2 in the offence of murder.\n<\/p>\n
    16.      In the result, there is no merit in the present Appeal and the <\/p>\n
    same is accordingly disposed of with following order :-\n<\/p>\n
                                    :: O R D E R ::\n<\/p>\n
      i. Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2004 stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                             ig                      (D.  D. SINHA, J.)\n                           \n                                                            (A. R. JOSHI, J.)        \n       \n    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:35:41 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011 Bench: D.D. Sinha, A. R. Joshi PPD 1 APEAL.202-04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2004 1. Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble, ] Age : 24 years, Occupation : Business, ] […]<\/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-209941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 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\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-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=\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-24T11:13:13+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-24T11:13:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3164,\"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\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-24T11:13:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 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":"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 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\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-24T11:13:13+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-24T11:13:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011"},"wordCount":3164,"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\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011","name":"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-24T11:13:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-sakharam-kamble-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 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\/209941","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=209941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}