{"id":217659,"date":"1970-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970"},"modified":"2015-08-15T10:19:44","modified_gmt":"2015-08-15T04:49:44","slug":"narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970","title":{"rendered":"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1656, \t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 133<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Hidayatullah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nNARAYAN NATHU NAIK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/03\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1656\t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 133\n 1970 SCC  (2) 101\n\n\nACT:\nCode   of   Criminal  Procedure\t (Act\t5   of\t 1898)--High\nCourt--Recording of reasons in appeals.\nFirst  Information Report--Written on plain paper, and\tthen\ncopied into register--Propriety.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe first information report in a murder case was written on\na piece of paper, and was copied into the register for first\ninformation  reports.\tThe  Sessions  Judge  convicted\t the\nappellant on the evidence, even though the first information\nreport was not recorded in the prescribed form.\t His  appeal\nto the High Court was summarily dismissed although the\tHigh\nCourt  recorded\t a brief note of the  arguments\t which\twere\nraised\tbefore\tit  and\t the  replies  to  those   arguments\nrepelling them.\t Dismissing the appeal, this Court\nHELD  : The High Court need not have recorded reasons if  it\nwas satisfied that the case was one for dismissal but if  it\nthought\t that  it  had to go into the evidence\tand  had  to\ndiscuss\t it,  the proper course would have been to  set\t the\ncase  down  for a proper bearing and to\t give  a  considered\njudgment  in  the case.\t The first  information\t report\t was\nproperly  written.   Several first information\treports\t are\nrecorded on plain pieces of paper and then transcribed\tinto\nthe first information report register.\tIn fact if a written\nreport\tis  brought, it is verbatim copied  into  the  first\ninformation report register.  In this case there was no time\nto  bring a false case against the appellant and to let\t the\nreal assailant escape. [134 C; 135 E-F] On the evidence, the\nappellant was rightly convicted.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal.  No.97  of<br \/>\n1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nApril  24, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal  Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 317 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.  M.\tHazarnavis, K. L. Hathi and P. C.  Kapoor,  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent,<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nHidayatullah  C.J.-This is an appeal by Narayan\t Nathu\tNaik<br \/>\nwho was tried by the Sessions Judge, Thana for the murder of<br \/>\none Rattan on the night following 18th March, 1966 at  about<br \/>\nmidnight.   He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under  S.\n<\/p>\n<p>302.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">134<\/span><br \/>\nof  the\t Indian\t Penal code and\t sentenced  to\timprisonment<br \/>\nfor  .life.   His  appeal to the High  Court  was  summarily<br \/>\ndismissed .although the High Court recorded a brief note  of<br \/>\nthe arguments which were raised before it and the replies to<br \/>\nthose  arguments  repelling them.  It is contended  in\tthis<br \/>\ncase that the appellant was entitled to at least one  appeal<br \/>\nand  that  his\tfirst  appeal  should  have  been   properly<br \/>\nconsidered  in the High Court and the judgment of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,, which according to the .learned counsel, reads\tlike<br \/>\na dialogue between the court and counsel, is no judgment  at<br \/>\nall.  It appears that special leave was probably granted  in<br \/>\nthis  case,  because of the unsatisfactory manner  in  which<br \/>\nreasons\t were  recorded.   The High  Court  need  .not\thave<br \/>\nrecorded reasons if it was satisfied that the case was\t,one<br \/>\nfor dismissal but if it thought that it had to go into the .<br \/>\nevidence and to discus it, the proper course would have been<br \/>\nto set the case down for a proper hearing and to give a con-<br \/>\nsidered judgment in the case.  We have considered this\tcase<br \/>\non  the\t evidence brought against the appellant and  we\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied  that the appeal must fail.  We give\tour  reasons<br \/>\nbriefly.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is some evidence that the appellant Narayan Nathu Naik<br \/>\nand  the  deceased Rattan had some  quarrel  over  property.<br \/>\nThis, it is contended, was somewhat old and not very serious<br \/>\nand  that nothing untoward had happened, for  the  appellant<br \/>\nto  .have suddenly embarked upon the murder of\trattan.\t  We<br \/>\nneed not consider the question of motive in this case if  we<br \/>\nare ,satisfied that the evidence that Narayan Nathu Naik was<br \/>\nthe  assailant\tof  Rattan,  is\t acceptable.   The   Medical<br \/>\nevidence  showed that Rattan died of a single  injury  which<br \/>\nwas a stab wound through the heart.  The left ventricle\t was<br \/>\ncut and the heart was drained of all blood.  The pericardium<br \/>\nhad  also a tear but on its upper reach and the evidence  of<br \/>\nthe  doctor  who  performed  the  autopsy  shows  that\t the<br \/>\npericardium was full of blood.\tThe clothes of the  deceased<br \/>\nwere  also profusely stained but no blood was  found  inside<br \/>\nthe  house where the deceased was first sleeping,  but\tsome<br \/>\nblood was found at the Ota where the dead body was found but<br \/>\nthe source of the blood could not be identified.  From\tthis<br \/>\nthe learned counsel raised the contention that the scene  of<br \/>\noffence was probably not what the prosecution case described<br \/>\nand  his contention is wound up with the rest of  the  story<br \/>\ngiven  by the eye witnesses particularly the wife who  named<br \/>\nthe  appellant as one of the assailants.  Therefore we\tmust<br \/>\nturn to that story.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the day in question, the deceased Rattan had gone to make<br \/>\nsome  purchases.   At  night he had not\t returned  when\t the<br \/>\nfamily took their meals and lay down to sleep.\tIn the house<br \/>\nat  that  time\twere  Rattan&#8217;s\tmother,\t Rattan&#8217;s  wife\t and<br \/>\nRattan&#8217;s<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">135<\/span><br \/>\n&#8216;brother.  There were three students who had .,come to\tthis<br \/>\nhouse\tand   were  staying  to\t appear\t at   the   S.S.L.C.<br \/>\nexamination.  The family distributed themselves as  follows.<br \/>\nInside\tthe house Rattan&#8217;s wife lay down on the ground on  a<br \/>\nbed with her infant child.  The bed for Rattan was made on a<br \/>\nswing  nearby.\t A lantern was burning and the door  of\t the<br \/>\nhouse  was  open.  Rattan returned at about 10 P.M.  in\t the<br \/>\nnight.\tAs food had been taken by the rest of the family,  a<br \/>\nportion\t was set apart for Rattan.  According to  his  wife,<br \/>\nVimalabai, he took his meals without waking her up and after<br \/>\nhe  had\t washed his hands, he threw some water on  her\tface<br \/>\nwhich woke her up.  He then lay down on the swing to  sleep.<br \/>\nVimalabai  says\t that  she  also  lay  down  to\t sleep\t and<br \/>\npresumably  she must have slept, because she says  that\t she<br \/>\nwas  woken up in the middle of the night by shouts from\t her<br \/>\nhusband.  Vimalabai&#8217;s evidence is that when she woke up, she<br \/>\nfound  that  her husband was in the grip  of  the  appellant<br \/>\nNarayan\t Nathu\tNaik  at the door near\tthe  ota.   Rattan&#8217;s<br \/>\nbrother Kamlakar who had also been awakened by the shouts of<br \/>\nthe  deceased  also  arrived there, but\t the  appellant\t had<br \/>\nstabbed Rattan.\t Kamlakar caught hold of the appellant\tfrom<br \/>\nbehind around his waist, but when Rattan fell on the  ground<br \/>\nthe  appellant broke loose and ran away.  On their  shouting<br \/>\nand  wailing,  Jairam the uncle of Rattan (P.W.1.)  and\t two<br \/>\nother  brothers\t of  Rattan came on the\t scene.\t  They\twere<br \/>\nliving at a distance of about 1-1\/2 furlongs from the  house<br \/>\nof  Rattan.   Rattan is said to have spoken  to\t his  mother<br \/>\nbefore\the  died  that it was Narayan  Nathu  Naik  who\t had<br \/>\nattacked  him.\t The evidence is that it was  Narayan  Nathu<br \/>\nNaik  and  this is brone out by the statements\tof  Kamlakar<br \/>\n(P.W.3),  Manibai  (P.W.4)  and Vimlabai  (P.W.5).  The\t two<br \/>\nstudents  who were also witnesses in the case made a  state-<br \/>\nment  before  the police involving Narayan Nathu  Naik,\t but<br \/>\nthey  later changed in the court and were  declared  hostile<br \/>\nand  cross-examined.   We  shall refer\thereafter  to  their<br \/>\ntestimony  in so far as they have admitted facts in  support<br \/>\nof the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  story  therefore  is  of an attack\t in  the  middle  of<br \/>\nthe  .night upon Rattan by the appellant at the door of\t his<br \/>\nhut.   The incident is said to have been witnessed by  three<br \/>\npersons\t whom we have mentioned and who are close  relations<br \/>\nof the deceased.  The argument is that the evidence of these<br \/>\nwitnesses  should not be accepted because of their  interest<br \/>\nin  Rattan  and also because of\t certain  contradictions  in<br \/>\ntheir testimony.\n<\/p>\n<p>Apart  from  the fact that the High Court and the  Court  of<br \/>\nSession\t have accepted their testimony and this\t Court\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  go into evidence for the third time, we have  read\t the<br \/>\nevidence<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">136<\/span><br \/>\nof these witnesses and we have thoroughly checked it and  we<br \/>\nare  satisfied that what has been stated by these  witnesses<br \/>\nis the true version of what happened on that fateful  night.<br \/>\nThe story is a simple one, of an attack in the middle of the<br \/>\nnight  by an ,assailant who was not only grappled  with\t but<br \/>\nwas  seen  and identified in the light.\t The  witnesses\t who<br \/>\nhave resiled have also stated that die occurrence took place<br \/>\nat  the\t door of the cottage.  They have  also\tstated\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was  sufficient light for them to see  although\tthey<br \/>\nchanged\t that they did not see the assailant nor heard\twhat<br \/>\nthe  victim stated to his mother about the appellant  having<br \/>\nassaulted him.\tThis version comes from the witnesses who no<br \/>\ndoubt are interested, but they are not interested enough  to<br \/>\nlet  the  real\tassailant escape and  charge  someone  else.<br \/>\nReport of this case was made almost immediately and in\tfact<br \/>\nthe  police arrived within a couple of hours and the  state-<br \/>\nments  were  recorded the very next morning.  There  was  no<br \/>\ntime  available\t to concoct a false case with  such  details<br \/>\nagainst the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was argued that the first information report was not pro-<br \/>\nperly recorded in the prescribed form but was writen down on<br \/>\na  piece  of paper and it was copied into the  register\t for<br \/>\nfirst  information reports.  At first it was suggested\tthat<br \/>\nthe  first  information report in the printed form  was\t not<br \/>\nproduced  in the case, but we find that it was\tso  produced<br \/>\nand that the Sub-Inspector stated that he had copied it from<br \/>\na  plain  paper.  In our experience, we\t have  seen  several<br \/>\nfirst information reports recorded on plain pieces of  paper<br \/>\nand  then  transcribed\tinto the  first\t information  report<br \/>\nregister.   In\tfact if a written report is brought,  it  is<br \/>\nverbatim copied into the first information report  register.<br \/>\nThere  is  no doubt that this was the first version  of\t the<br \/>\nincident  given\t out by P.W. 1 Jairam when he  went  to\t the<br \/>\npolice station house to report about the occurrence.   There<br \/>\nwas no time to bring a false case against the appellant\t and<br \/>\nto  let\t the real assailant escape.  On the  whole,  we\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied  that\t the  evidence\tof  the\t eye  witnesses\t  is<br \/>\nbelievable.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  witnesses\twho resiled were the two students  who\twere<br \/>\npresent\t at  the house for the purpose of  appearing  at  an<br \/>\nexamination.  They have answered a number of questions which<br \/>\nclearly\t corroborate  the evidence of the  other  witnesses.<br \/>\nFor example, P.W. 7-Chintaman Gangaram Kulkarni stated\tthat<br \/>\nthe  light of some lamp was coming outside the door  of\t the<br \/>\nhouse  and that when Kamlakar caught hold of  the  assailant<br \/>\nRattan fell down on the ground near the door of the Ota.  He<br \/>\nalso  stated  that Rattan&#8217;s mother went\t inside\t the  house,<br \/>\nbrought water, tried to give water to Rattan, but he did not<br \/>\ndrink.\tHe also stated<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">137<\/span><br \/>\nthat  after hearing the cries,, Rattan&#8217;s uncles, his  sister<br \/>\nand her husband came there.  He admitted that Kamlakar\ttold<br \/>\nhis uncle what had happened, he did not hear it.  He admited<br \/>\nthat  it was true also that thereafter one of the uncles  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased Rattan. went to the police station to  make  a<br \/>\nreport.\t  The  other  witness (P.W. 10)\t also  stated  quite<br \/>\nclearly\t that at about 3 or 4 A.M. the police came  to\tthe,<br \/>\nhouse  and  that his statement and those of  two  companions<br \/>\nwere recorded by the police at 7 A.M. the next morning.\t  He<br \/>\nalso  admited that they all woke up when they heard the\t cry<br \/>\nin the middle of the night and that Rattan&#8217;s, wife had\talso<br \/>\nawakened  and  she had stood in the door of the\t house.\t  He<br \/>\nadmitted  that\tthe light was burning in the house  and\t the<br \/>\ndoor  of the house was open and that the light of the  lamp.<br \/>\nhad spread over the ota of the house through the open door..<br \/>\nHe also admitted that Rattan&#8217;s mother brought water from the<br \/>\nhouse and poured in into the mouth of Rattan but he did\t not<br \/>\ndrink and all the inmates were crying aloud with the  result<br \/>\nthat  Rattan&#8217;s\tuncle  Jairam, his  two\t brothers,  Rattan&#8217;s<br \/>\nsister\tand  her husband came there  immediately  after\t the<br \/>\ncrime.\tJairam made enquiries with Kamalakar and Naibai\t how<br \/>\nit  had happened and that Kamlakar told something to  Jairam<br \/>\nbut he said that he did not hear it.  All this\tcorroborates<br \/>\nthe  evidence of the, three eye witnesses except as  to\t the<br \/>\nidentity  of the appellant.  We accept the evidence  of\t the<br \/>\neye-witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  medical  evidence was used to challenge  the  scene  of<br \/>\noffence on the ground that there were no blood marks  found,<br \/>\nbut,  in our opinion, the man might bleed  internally  after<br \/>\nreceiving,  stab  wound in the heart.\tThe  witnesses\thave<br \/>\nstated\tthat Rattan was stabbed on the spot where  the\tbody<br \/>\nwas  found  after the occurrence took place.  Blood  was  in<br \/>\nfact found at the spot but the source of the blood could not<br \/>\nbe  ascertained\t There is no, reason to think  that  it\t was<br \/>\nblood  of some animal.\tOn the whole we are  satisfied\tthat<br \/>\nthis case was proved satisfactorily.- The appeal. therefore,<br \/>\nfails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Y.P.\t\t\t       Appeal dismissed'.\n11sup.CI-10\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">138<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1656, 1971 SCR (1) 133 Author: M Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj) PETITIONER: NARAYAN NATHU NAIK Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/03\/1970 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) GROVER, A.N. CITATION: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-15T04:49:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-15T04:49:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2009,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\",\"name\":\"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-15T04:49:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-15T04:49:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970","datePublished":"1970-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-15T04:49:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970"},"wordCount":2009,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970","name":"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-15T04:49:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-nathu-naik-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narayan Nathu Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 1970"}]},{"@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\/217659","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=217659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}