{"id":218065,"date":"2008-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-08T16:45:12","modified_gmt":"2017-01-08T11:15:12","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                                - 1 -\n\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.395 OF 1994\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n    The State of Maharashtra.                    .. APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n         VERSUS\n\n    1) Mallikarjun s\/o Govindrao Vanne\n       Age: 35 Yrs., occu: Agril.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    2) Laxman s\/o Lalba Kamble,\n       Age: 40 Yrs., occu: Agril.\n\n    3) Shivraj s\/o Sheshrao Panchlinge,\n       Age: 21 Yrs., occu: Agril.\n\n\n\n\n                               \n    .   All r\/o Shivni, Tq. Degloor,\n        District Nanded.                       .. RESPONDENTS\n                     ig                   (Orig. Accused nos.2,\n                                          5 and 10 respectively)\n\n                            __________\n                   \n    Shri J.S.Gavhane, A.P.P. for Appellant\/State;\n    Shri P.V.Mandlik, Sr. Counsel and Shri A.S.Gandhi,\n    Advocate for Respondents.\n\n                           -----------\n      \n\n\n                               WITH\n   \n\n\n\n          CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2006\n\n    1) Mallikarjun s\/o Govindrao Vanne\n       Age: 55 Yrs., occupation:Agril.\n       R\/o Shivani, Tq. Degloor,\n\n\n\n\n\n       District Nanded.\n\n    2) Laxman s\/o Lalba Kamble,\n       Age: 54 Yrs., occupation :Agril.\n       R\/o Shivani, Tq. Degloor,\n       District Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3) Shivraj s\/o Sheshrao Panchlinge\n       Age: 37 Yrs., occupation:Agril.\n       R\/o Shivani, Tq. Degloor,\n       District Nanded.                     .. PETITIONERS\n                                    (Orig.Accused nos. 2, 5\n                                    and 10)\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::\n                                              - 2 -\n\n\n\n\n               VERSUS\n\n    The State of Maharashtra\n    (Through the Public Prosecutor\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    High Court, Bench at Aurangabad)\n    (for the Police Station, Mirkhel,\n    Tq. Degloor, District Nanded.)                               .. RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                                             ___\n\n    Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr.Counsel h\/f Mr. U.B.Bilolikar, Adv.\n    for petitioners;\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Mr.J.S.Gavhane, A.P.P. for Respondent\/State.\n\n                                            ***\n                                         CORAM:     K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                         Date :     30.09.2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n    1)        The\n                            \n                          State,     being   aggrieved          by     the      order         of\n                           \n    inadequate        sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate First\n\n    Class,     Degloor,          for the offence under Section                   326      read\n\n<\/pre>\n
    with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has come in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    2)        The         accused\/Revision         Petitioners           by     filing          a<\/p>\n
    Revision        have     challenged      the judgment and                 order     dated<\/p>\n
    27.9.2006        in     Criminal Appeal No.         30 of 1994              passed        by<\/p>\n
    learned     Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, who                           confirmed<\/p>\n
    the    judgment         and     order of J.M.F.C.            in      Regular        Trial<\/p>\n
    No.177\/1992.            By     the   judgment     of      the      J.M.F.C.,            the<\/p>\n
    accused\/original accused no.2 – Mallikarjun;                            accused no.5<\/p>\n
    –     Laxman and accused no.10 – Shivraj, were convicted                                for<\/p>\n
    the    offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34                                  of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
    IPC     and     were directed to suffer R.I.                  for one year              each<\/p>\n
    and     to     pay    fine        of Rs.    1000\/- each,          in     default,          to<\/p>\n
    further undergo R.I.               for one year.         By the said judgment,<\/p>\n
    the learned J.M.F.C.               has acquitted the other accused.                        It<\/p>\n
    is     the     matter       of record that said            acquittal          of       other<\/p>\n
    accused         was       also     subjected       to   Criminal         Appeal          No.<\/p>\n
    396\/1994,       as        raised by the State and by                judgment           dated<\/p>\n
    27.10.2005,          this       Court rejected the Criminal Appeal                       No.<\/p>\n
    396\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
    3)        On      hearing         both     the      sides,        though           learned<\/p>\n
    Sr.Counsel<\/p>\n
                     for the accused elaborately read the                           evidence<\/p>\n
    of     eye-witnesses            and the injured, at one stage,                    he     was<\/p>\n
    reminded that in a revision, the scope for appreciation is<\/p>\n
    very     limited          and     there are concurrent findings                   of     two<\/p>\n
    courts        below against the accused, he should restrict                              his<\/p>\n
    submissions to the law point only.                      The position of law is<\/p>\n
    clear.        The court while sitting in revisional jurisdiction<\/p>\n
    under        Section 397 of Cr.P.C.              should not reappreciate the<\/p>\n
    evidence       and        the     findings of fact recorded by                  the      two<\/p>\n
    courts         below.           However,    these       finding        can      only       be<\/p>\n
    interfered,          if     such findings are apparently perverse                          or<\/p>\n
    based on no evidence or suffer from any other legal injury<\/p>\n
    and     error of law.            With this aspect keeping in mind,                       the<\/p>\n
    submissions of both the sides are considered.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
    4)        The learned A.P.P., since wanted enhancement of the<\/p>\n
    sentence        recorded by the J.M.F.C., took me to the                     entire<\/p>\n
    evidence        and     claimed    that, for the      offence         punishable<\/p>\n
    under     Section 326 of IPC, there being a grievous hurt                           as<\/p>\n
    defined         under     the     statute,    which    grievous          hurt       is<\/p>\n
    medically        established by evidence of the medical                    officer<\/p>\n
    (P.W.3),        the     learned J.M.F.C.      should have recorded                the<\/p>\n
    sentence        more     than one year, considering the gravity                     of<\/p>\n
    the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    5)        The      learned Sr.Counsel for the accused                 criticized<\/p>\n
    the F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
                       of the complainant (P.W.1) claiming that it is<\/p>\n
    silent       about the names of the accused and in the evidence<\/p>\n
    he    says      that     Sangram came to the house,            while       in     the<\/p>\n
    F.I.R.        he      states that while he was at          home,       employees<\/p>\n
    working       in field came.        The criticism to the evidence                   of<\/p>\n
    P.W.1 basically is not to be considered as P.W.1 is not an<\/p>\n
    eye-witness to the incident.             Whatever report he has given<\/p>\n
    to    the police is based on the communication received from<\/p>\n
    his     employees, who informed that his brother Hanmant                          was<\/p>\n
    brutally        assaulted and consequently, he rushed to                     police<\/p>\n
    to    put the investigation in motion.              In this scenario                of<\/p>\n
    the     matter, Exhibit-65 or evidence of P.W.1 will have                           to<\/p>\n
    be    read.        It cannot be said there are omissions                   and      or<\/p>\n
    contradictions in his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
    6)        On the incident, there are following witnesses :\n<\/p>\n
    P.W.4     –     Hanmantrao           Vithalrao Patil;               P.W.5        –     Sangram<\/p>\n
    Malhari Waghmare;                P.W.8 – Sangram Hullaji Waghmare.\n<\/p>\n
    7)        On     assessing evidence of these witnesses,                               coupled<\/p>\n
    with     complainant’s             evidence,        I find        that       barring         few<\/p>\n
    contradictions about the distance to be 50 ft.                                   or less or<\/p>\n
    about     who        rushed        first, there is no variance                    in        their<\/p>\n
    evidence        to     claim that they are brought up witnesses                                or<\/p>\n
    that they are interested to falsely implicate the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    It      is     pertinent\n                                ig     to   note        that     the      learned             Judge,\n\n    considering           the       evidence      of      the      witnesses,              showing\n                              \n    specific        role to accused no.2 - Mallikarjun with an                                  axe;\n\n    accused        no.     5 - Laxman with Katti;                  and accused no.10                 -\n\n    Shivraj        with        an     axe, and     brutally          assaulting            injured\n      \n\n\n    P.W.4,       has come to the conclusion about the guilt against\n   \n\n\n\n    the accused.\n\n\n\n\n\n    8)        P.W.4        -        Hanmantrao,        as could be          seen         from     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    medical evidence of P.W.3 – Dr.Jananrdhan Iranna Bhume and<\/p>\n
    P.W.16 -Dr.N.Parvati, had suffered as many as 15 injuries.\n<\/p>\n
    Out of them, injury nos.                   1 and 2 were grievous in nature,<\/p>\n
    as     these     injuries were fractures at lower part                               of     left<\/p>\n
    finger       bone (left elbow posterity) – 6 x 1 x 4 cms.                                   with<\/p>\n
    sharp     edge        and bleeding profusely while injury no.2                               was<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                             – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
    compound        fracture on right leg medially fracture of right<\/p>\n
    tibia     and        fibula     bone – 4 x 1 x 6 cms.             The      wound       was<\/p>\n
    fresh and having sharp edge and it was bleeding profusely.\n<\/p>\n
    The     medical        officer (P.W.3) noticed other incise                       wounds<\/p>\n
    referred        in     his     evidence     and    medical        certificate            at<\/p>\n
    Exhibit-75,           which    are on other part of body of                   P.W.4        –\n<\/p>\n
    Hanumantrao.            He     has identified Hanmantrao,                apart       from<\/p>\n
    identifying           and confirming the certificate issued at Exh.<\/p>\n
\n\n    75     in relation to injuries noticed by him on                         examination\n\n    of     injured        on 30.07.1992;        The eye-witnesses other                  than\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Hanmantrao           have     also identified the accused persons                      and\n\n    the     respective\n                             ig  weapons including apparels which were                       on\n\n    the      person        of     the   accused.         The      claim        that        the\n                           \n    eye-witnesses           were in another field is again difficult to\n\n<\/pre>\n
    accept as it is brought in evidence that the eye-witnesses<\/p>\n
    were     performing agricultural work and were barely at                               the<\/p>\n
    distance of 50 ft., but could not come forward.                             No sooner<\/p>\n
    the     accused left the place, they came and looking to                               the<\/p>\n
    condition        of     P.W.4,      they    rushed       to     P.W.1.          In     the<\/p>\n
    agriculture           field, where P.W.4 was watching                  agricultural<\/p>\n
    activities           while    labours      were working at           the      material<\/p>\n
    time,     it cannot be said that the prosecution should                              have<\/p>\n
    examined        other independent witnesses since there were                             no<\/p>\n
    such     independent          witnesses.     By the very nature                 of     the<\/p>\n
    employees referred above being eye-witness, their evidence<\/p>\n
    cannot     be        discarded      under    the     banner       of     they        being<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
    interested             witnesses.        The term “interested witness”                      has<\/p>\n
    several shades and angularities, coming forward to narrate<\/p>\n
    events       is not to be looked with jaundiced eyes.                              There is<\/p>\n
    nothing          to show, these witnesses were demonstrating                              mere<\/p>\n
    loyalty          to        P.w.4 than their presence.              In the facts             and<\/p>\n
    circumstances,               where       the labours were working and                   their<\/p>\n
    master       was           brutally attacked, they cannot be said to                          be<\/p>\n
    cooked       and           brought up witnesses to narrate the                     incident<\/p>\n
    against the accused.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    9)          It        is    brought       in the evidence and             confirmed           by\n\n    P.W.4,       coupled\n                                 \n                                  with       evidence of P.W.1, that he                  had      no\n\n    animosity with the accused.                    It was only a dispute between\n                                \n<\/pre>\n
    the accused – Mallikarjun and another, in which, as Police<\/p>\n
    Patil       (P.W.4)          became instrumental and at Police                       Station<\/p>\n
    has     raised his voice, the accused got annoyed and in                                    the<\/p>\n
    company          they came together with deadly weapons and in the<\/p>\n
    manner       as        stated       by    P.W.4      and    witnessed           by      other<\/p>\n
    eye-witnesses,                have       assaulted     P.W.4         causing         fifteen<\/p>\n
    injuries to him.\n<\/p>\n
    10)         Section          320     of IPC deals with grievous                  hurt       and<\/p>\n
    clause       Seventhly             indicates fracture or dislocation of                         a<\/p>\n
    bone or tooth.               As stated earlier, injuries at Serial Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    1     and    2        suffered by P.W.4, recorded by                   P.W.3       will       be<\/p>\n
    coming       in terms of clause Seventhly of Section 320 of IPC<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
    and      naturally          such    injury       was    grievous          in     nature,<\/p>\n
    therefore,          it    will not be a hurt to get benefit for                         the<\/p>\n
    accused.           The    act      of   the accused,        armed       with        deadly<\/p>\n
    weapons,          was in all situations a voluntary act.                       They had<\/p>\n
    come     prepared         and consequently even pelted stone on                         the<\/p>\n
    PW-4 injured causing abrasion to him at his back side.                                    As<\/p>\n
    stated earlier, user of axe or Katti will be coming within<\/p>\n
    the     terms       of “deadly weapons”, which is likely to                           cause<\/p>\n
    death,       and naturally has its impact on the witness P.W.4,<\/p>\n
    he     was    in     the hospital for more than three                     months        and<\/p>\n
    could not follow his ordinary pursuits.\n<\/p>\n
    11)       Learned         defence counsel in this context invited my<\/p>\n
    attention          to the judgment reported in 1969 Cri.L.J.                           1498<\/p>\n
    in     the    matter of State of Gujarat Vs.                   Samaj.          In     that<\/p>\n
    case,     the       matter      pertained to the hurt              caused        on     the<\/p>\n
    person       of     the     victim and he was unable               to     follow        his<\/p>\n
    ordinary          pursuits during the space of 20 days and Hon’ble<\/p>\n
    Lordships observed that :                ” Both the ingredients have got<\/p>\n
    to    be established by the prosecution and it would not                                  be<\/p>\n
    enough       to     say     that he remained in the hospital                     for      20<\/p>\n
    days.        The     case     before hand is within              the      bracket         of<\/p>\n
    Section       320     clause Seventhly and will not be                      attracting<\/p>\n
    the     impediments as envisaged in clause (8) of Section 320<\/p>\n
    of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
    12)       Learned Sr.Counsel then invited my attention to the<\/p>\n
    judgment        reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.                   1788 in the matter of<\/p>\n
    Narayan Kanu Datavale and Ors.                  Vs.         State of Maharashtra,<\/p>\n
    in     which,     this       Court observed that                while       appreciating<\/p>\n
    evidence        of injured, there is no immutable rule that such<\/p>\n
    evidence should be mechanically accepted.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    13)       On     reading judgment of the two courts, I find that\n\n    both     the Courts have dealt with the evidence of P.W.4                                     in\n\n    depth      and        they    have       not    mechanically              accepted          the\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    evidence.         The evidence of P.W.4 had the support of other\n\n    three     eye-witnesses\n                             ig        coupled     with         evidence          of     medical\n\n    officer        (P.W.3)       and     P.W.16.         The      learned         Judge       also\n                           \n    recorded        the    finding concerning recovery of axe                            at     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    intance of the accused to be inspiring confidence and such<\/p>\n
    recovery        having been proved was one of the                         corroborative<\/p>\n
    facts against the accused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    14)       Since       there        are   two concurrent findings                     of     the<\/p>\n
    courts     below       against the accused and on revision or                               re-\n<\/p>\n
    appreciating          the evidence, no infirmity could be seen                                at<\/p>\n
    the     threshold        in the matter, it cannot be said that                              the<\/p>\n
    order     of the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the order<\/p>\n
    of the Additional Sessions Judge smacks with perversity or<\/p>\n
    requires        interference.            In    the         result,        the      criminal<\/p>\n
    revision preferred by the accused\/appellant is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
    15)         Now         comes    the appeal preferred by the                    State       for<\/p>\n
    enhancement for the sentence recorded against accused nos.\n<\/p>\n
    2,     10        and 5.        Evidence of P.W.1, as stated                 earlier,          is<\/p>\n
    only        to     put the prosecution in motion and nothing                            more.\n<\/p>\n
    The other evidence of the injured and the eye-witnesses is<\/p>\n
    elaborately              discussed       hereinbefore.          The finding of              the<\/p>\n
    learned          Judge, while awarding the sentence is recorded in<\/p>\n
    paragraphs              20 and 21 of the Judgment.               The learned            Judge<\/p>\n
    was     satisfied              that the prosecution has proved                   the       case<\/p>\n
    beyond        all        reasonable doubt, the accused persons                         formed<\/p>\n
    unlawful<\/p>\n
                       assembly and they were members of that                          assembly<\/p>\n
    and     it       has      also proved that the prosecution                      of     common<\/p>\n
    object        of        assembly       was     to assualt       the      injured.           The<\/p>\n
    learned          Judge also recorded, “it has also proved that the<\/p>\n
    accused            persons         formed       unlawful        assembly             and      in<\/p>\n
    prosecution              of common object to the said assembly was                            to<\/p>\n
    assault Hanmantrao Patil and the accused nos.                                 2, 10 and 5<\/p>\n
    were        armed with deadly weapons and they have                           voluntarily<\/p>\n
    caused        grievous          hurt     in pursuance of           the      said       common<\/p>\n
    object.”           In     paragraph 22, on the point of                   awarding          the<\/p>\n
    sentence,           the        learned       Judge has referred that               when       he<\/p>\n
    asked the accused persons, they claimed that they have not<\/p>\n
    committed any offence.                   The learned Judge observed, taking<\/p>\n
    into        consideration          the       nature of offence and               the       age,<\/p>\n
    antecedent               and     character       of    accused           persons,           the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
    punishment          to        be awarded by him will be          sufficient           for<\/p>\n
    ends     of        justice and consequently, as stated earlier,                         he<\/p>\n
    awarded        punishment          to accused nos.      2 ;      accused no.              5<\/p>\n
    and     accused          no.       10, for the offence        punishable          under<\/p>\n
    Section        326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for                             a<\/p>\n
    period        of     one year each and to pay fine of Rs.                      1,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    each.         The     observation          of the learned Judge,           and      even<\/p>\n
    confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cannot<\/p>\n
    be     said, in the set of situation, to be erroneous, as the<\/p>\n
    learned Judge has exercised his discretion in the light of<\/p>\n
    evidence, demeanour of the witnesses and fact situation at<\/p>\n
    the     material time.\n<\/p>\n
                               ig       The other circumstance in the                matter<\/p>\n
    also     cannot          be     ignored.     The judgment      of     the      learned<\/p>\n
    Judge,        convicting           the accused is dated 22.09.1994.                   The<\/p>\n
    Criminal Appeal No.                30\/1994 was decided on 27.09.2006 and<\/p>\n
    the     Criminal Revision and the present Criminal appeal are<\/p>\n
    decided today.            The time between all the events also needs<\/p>\n
    consideration.                It    is   informed by both the           sides       that<\/p>\n
    there is no case pending against the accused, nor they are<\/p>\n
    involved           in any criminal activities prior to the incident<\/p>\n
    or post incident.\n<\/p>\n
    16)       The       learned Sr.Counsel even urged that the accused<\/p>\n
    and     the        injured are not evolving in any               scores        against<\/p>\n
    each     other        and for all purposes, they have                 settled         the<\/p>\n
    controversies            whatever has happened has gone to past.                        He<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
    alternatively           urged that the punishment undergone                  during<\/p>\n
    the     period,         may be considered and considering              the      said<\/p>\n
    punishment, the accused\/appellants\/revision petitioners be<\/p>\n
    released       forthwith.       Since the State has challenged                    the<\/p>\n
    very     punishment        to be inadequate, it will be mockery                     of<\/p>\n
    justice       to reduce the said conviction of one year to                        the<\/p>\n
    period       undergone      which will be amounting to rub salt                     on<\/p>\n
    the     injuries suffered by P.W.4 for no fault of him                          since<\/p>\n
    he     was    a    police patil and was        ordinarily         required          to<\/p>\n
    discharge         his    duties as such.      He had no motive             or     ill<\/p>\n
    will     against the accused.         Simply performing his part                    of<\/p>\n
    obligation<\/p>\n
                       has indeed staked his life as he was                  required<\/p>\n
    to     suffer fifteen incise wounds, as reflected hereinabove<\/p>\n
    and hospitalised for 3 months.\n<\/p>\n
    17)       Considering        all the facts, I do not see that there<\/p>\n
    is any other reason to enhance the sentence awarded to the<\/p>\n
    accused.       Hence, order :\n<\/p>\n
                                     O R D E R<\/p>\n
    (i)      Criminal         Revision   No.   332 of 2006 moved               by     the<\/p>\n
    accused\/revision petitioners is rejected;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)     Criminal         Appeal moved by the State for enhancement<\/p>\n
    of sentence is rejected;\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)   The accused, who are on bail, will surrender before<\/p>\n
    Judicial   Magistrate    First   Class,      Degloor         on     3rd      of<\/p>\n
    November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.)<\/p>\n
    bdv\/uniplex\/cral395.94<\/p>\n
    Authentic copy<\/p>\n
    (BD VADNERE,PA)<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:49 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 Bench: K.U. Chandiwal – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.395 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. .. APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Mallikarjun s\/o Govindrao Vanne Age: 35 Yrs., occu: Agril. 2) Laxman s\/o […]<\/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-218065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 - 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-08T11:15:12+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-08T11:15:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2155,\"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\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-08T11:15:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 - 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-08T11:15:12+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-08T11:15:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008"},"wordCount":2155,"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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008","name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-08T11:15:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-mallikarjun-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Mallikarjun on 30 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/218065","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=218065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}