{"id":226169,"date":"2010-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-08T02:05:40","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T20:35:40","slug":"sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                                 1\n\n\n                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                   \n                                     BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                                      CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 3 \/2006\n                                                   &\n                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO. 120\/2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    Criminal Appeal No.   3\/2006:\n\n    1)                Sachin s\/o Keshao Chate\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                      Aged 26 years\n\n    2)\n                                         \n                      Sandip  Kishor Waghmare\n                      Aged  24 years\n                                        \n                      Both are R\/o  Adarsha Nagar\n                      Sewagram, Dist.Wardha ( M.S.)..                                            ...APPELLANTS\n       \n\n\n                                                            v e r s u s\n    \n\n\n\n                      The State of Maharashtra\n                      Through    Police Station Officer\n                      Sewagram Dist. Wardha (MS)                                                 ...RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n    ............................................................................................................................\n                        Mr. R.M.Daga,  Advocate   for appellants\n                        Mr. D.B.Patel,  Addl. Public Prosecutor  for Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n    Criminal Appeal No.  120\/2006:\n\n\n                      The State of Maharashtra\n                      Through    Police Station Officer\n                      Sewagram Dist. Wardha                                                      ...APPELLANT\n\n\n                                                          v e r s u s\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::\n                                                          2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                     \n    1)              Lalji  alias Rajkumar Ramavatar Yadav\n                    Aged 22 years\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n    2)              Suraj  Bhimrao  Vaidya\n                    Aged 19 years\n\n    3)              Dhiraj Suraj Wankhede\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                    Aged about  19 years\n\n    4)              Ankush  Bhaurao   Masram\n                    Aged  35 years\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n    5)              Prakash  Jyotiram Ingale\n                    Aged   23 years \n    6)              Kailas Jyotiram Ingale\n                    Aged  21 years\n                                   \n    7)              Dinesh  alias Munna  Ramavatar Yadav\n                    Aged 20 years\n\n    8)              Narendra  alias  Guddu Hariprasad  Dubey\n       \n\n\n                    Aged  20 years\n    \n\n\n\n                    All  R\/o Adarsha Nagar  \n                    Sewagram Dist. Wardha.                                           ...RESPONDENTS\n\n    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                     \n                    Mr. D.B. Patel,  Addl. Public Prosecutor  for appellant\n                    Mr S.A.Sainis Adv.h\/for  Shri A.S.Manohar, Adv.for Res.No.1, 5, \n                    6 & 8,\n                    Smt. A.A.Joshi,  Advocate for Respondent no.4\n                    Respondents 2,3 and 7   are  served.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                    CORAM:     A.H. JOSHI   &\n                                                               A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                    DATED:      24th   September,2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>\n                                                    3<\/span>\n\n\n    JUDGMENT : (Per  A.P. BHANGALE, J.) :   \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                            \n    1.            Criminal   Appeal   No.   3\/2006       is   preferred   by   the \n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n    appellants\/convicts     challenging the impugned judgment and   order   dated \n\n<\/pre>\n
    20th  October, 2005  passed by learned  1st Ad-hoc   Additional Sessions Judge, <\/p>\n
    Wardha  in Sessions Trial No. 117\/2003    whereby the learned  trial Judge <\/p>\n
    found the appellants   guilty   of offence punishable under section 302 read <\/p>\n
    with section 34   of the Indian Penal Code ( in short “IPC” ) and   sentenced <\/p>\n
    them to suffer imprisonment for life;  while the other  accused  Lalaji  Yadav, <\/p>\n
    Suraj   Vaidya,       Dheeraj   Wankhede,     Prakash   Ingle,   Kailash   Ingle,   Dinesh <\/p>\n
    Yadav,   Narendra   Dubey     were   found     guilty   of   offence   punishable   under <\/p>\n
    section 326  read with Section 149  of the IPC;   and  were sentenced to suffer <\/p>\n
    RI  for     four years and  fine  in the sum of Rs.1,000\/-  payable by each of <\/p>\n
    them, in default,    each of them  were directed to suffer RI   for one month.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus,   the   accused     who   were     found   guilty     of   offence   punishable   under <\/p>\n
    section 326         read with section 149   of IPC   and   were   acquitted of the <\/p>\n
    offence punishable under  section 302  read  with section 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            The     State   of   Maharashtra   too     challenged   the   impugned <\/p>\n
    judgment and order by way of Criminal Appeal No.120\/2006      questioning <\/p>\n
    the   legality   thereof,       with   prayer   to  convict     and     sentence   the     accused <\/p>\n
    according to law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.            Briefly stated the prosecution   case is that:     one       Aziz Bapu <\/p>\n
    Miyan  Sheikh         was  running       a  STD        booth     at   Sevagram     Chowk, <\/p>\n
    Wardha;  while is elder  brother  Suleiman   is running a  shop of Pan material <\/p>\n
    by the side of STD booth.    There is one hotel and  tea canteen   of  Johnny <\/p>\n
    @ Jan Mohammed  since last  eight years prior to the incident.  The deceased <\/p>\n
    Salim  @   Mahesh Barayya  was living   along with  said Johnny     and  was <\/p>\n
    running another  tea canteen,  adjacent to the tea  canteen of Johny.   Salim <\/p>\n
    @       Mahesh married with a Muslim girl.         Dilip Barayya, brother of said <\/p>\n
    Salim was working   as   servant in the hotel of   Johnnybhai.     The accused <\/p>\n
    were resident of   Adarsha Nagar, Sevagram, on the date of incident. On   1st <\/p>\n
    1st July 2003 between 9.10 p.m.  and 9.30 p.m.,      Aziz Bapu Miyan Sheikh <\/p>\n
    was present  at his STD booth.   He had  heard shouts coming  from the side <\/p>\n
    of Sevagram square. When he  went there  he saw that accused  Lalji Yadav, <\/p>\n
    Munna   Sandip Waghmare, Sachin Chate  and others  had entered into the <\/p>\n
    Hotel of Johnny bhai.  The accused No.1  Lalji  Yadav  was having      sword in <\/p>\n
    his   hands,       accused   Sandip   Waghmare   was   having   a     trident   (trishul  );\n<\/p>\n
    whereas   other   accused     were       armed   with   iron   rods  as   well   as  wooden <\/p>\n
    sticks.     They had   started   damaging   the   tables   and   chairs   of the tea <\/p>\n
    canteen   of Johnnybhai   and accused Lalji had   assaulted Suleiman   on the <\/p>\n
    head   by   means     of     sword.       Suleiman   fell     down   on   the   ground;   while <\/p>\n
    accused Sachin Chate   assaulted Salim Barayya         with        a spear.  Sandip <\/p>\n
    Waghmare   hit   Salim   on   his   head   by   means   of   trident.     Accused       Dhiraj <\/p>\n
    assaulted Suleiman on his head. Accused Prakash had  assaulted Tahir son of <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Suleiman       by means of     wooden stick;     Kailash         was also armed with <\/p>\n
    sword and he had   assaulted Tahir  by means of sword.   The accused  Guddu <\/p>\n
    Dubey was assaulting  Suleiman on his head, when   Tahir tried to intervene <\/p>\n
    to save his father Suleiman. Thus,  according to prosecution Aziz Bapu Miyan <\/p>\n
    Sheikh     saw   the   entire   incident   in   which   his   elder   brother   Suleiman <\/p>\n
    Johnnybhai   Mahesh  @ Dilip    were injured.   The accused persons had also <\/p>\n
    damaged the articles in the Hospital and thereafter they ran away from the <\/p>\n
    spot.   Aziz Sheikh     informed  the    Sevagram Police  Station by   telephone <\/p>\n
    about the incident. All the injured persons were then taken to       Sevagram <\/p>\n
    Hospital while  Aziz Sheikh   lodged first information report which gave rise <\/p>\n
    to Crime No.102\/2003         against the   accused. The investigation   followed <\/p>\n
    thereafter.    The Police visited the spot, drew the spot panchnama.  Injured <\/p>\n
    persons  were    taken to    Sevagram Hospital    where  they   were    medically <\/p>\n
    examined namely, Suleiman Sheikh,   Tahir Sulkeiman, Johnnybhai   as   well <\/p>\n
    as  Dilip Barayya.   Salim @ Mahesh   Barayya  unfortunately succumbed to <\/p>\n
    the injuries which he had  received.   The Inquest Panchanama was  drawn on <\/p>\n
    the     dead   body     in   presence   of   Panchas     and   dead   body     of   Salim     was <\/p>\n
    referred for  post-mortem examination. According to Doctor  who performed <\/p>\n
    the autopsy he   died as   a result of   haemorrhagic shock     due to injury on <\/p>\n
    vital organ i.e. lung. During the course     of investigation       articles namely, <\/p>\n
    pair of   slippers,       sample of   blood,       blood     smeared with earth, were <\/p>\n
    seized from the spot.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.            The accused were arrested.  It is  the case of the prosecution that <\/p>\n
    in the course of  investigation the   accused Lalji Yadav      had led  police and <\/p>\n
    Panchas  to     discovery  of    sword   which   he   had     concealed     while   accused <\/p>\n
    Sachin Chate led police     and Panchas     and  Bhala  (spear)   was discovered <\/p>\n
    from   under the cot   from his house;   while at the instance of Narendra @ <\/p>\n
    Guddu Dube   one iron road was  recovered and  auto rickshaw  in which the <\/p>\n
    accused allegedly  travelled to the  hotel of Johnnybhai was also seized;  while <\/p>\n
    at the instance of  accused Suraj Vaidya,     iron rod  was seized;    weapons <\/p>\n
    were   also   allegedly   recovered   from   other   accused   Manoj   Kolte,   Dhiraj <\/p>\n
    Wankhede. The police had  also seized   blood stained clothes  from the dead <\/p>\n
    body of   Salim   Barayya;   blood   stained clothes injured persons   were also <\/p>\n
    seized  and  stick  was seized at the instance of  Prakash Ingle   while  at the <\/p>\n
    instance   of   Kailash   Ingle     sword   was   seized.       Trident   was   seized   at   the <\/p>\n
    instance of accused Sandip Waghmare;   sticks were seized at the instance of <\/p>\n
    Ankush Meshram  and Dinesh Yadav. The police had also collected samples of <\/p>\n
    blood  from the   arrested accused which were  referred to Chemical analysis <\/p>\n
    in a  sealed condition. Thus upon completion of  evidence  charge-sheet  was <\/p>\n
    laid before the Court of first J.M.F.C. Wardha on 29.9.2003. The   case   was <\/p>\n
    committed   to   the   Court   of     Sessions   at   Wardha     being   Sessions   trial <\/p>\n
    No.117\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            Learned APP in support of the Appeal filed by the State, submitted <\/p>\n
    that those who formed   the unlawful   assembly   in prosecution of common <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
    object  to   commit  murder   of  unfortunate   Salim    @   Mahesh   Barayya   were <\/p>\n
    wrongly  acquitted  of  offence of murder  and  were convicted under section <\/p>\n
    326  read with section 149 IPC,  instead  of    section section 307  read with <\/p>\n
    section 149 IPC.     He submitted that trial Court had convicted the accused <\/p>\n
    with   the   aid   of   Section   149   of   the     IPC     which   indicate   that  existence   of <\/p>\n
    unlawful assembly   was proved within the meaning of Section 141   of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence,   reasonable  inference  ought to have been drawn while answering the <\/p>\n
    points framed for    determination  to hold   as to whether the  accused  were <\/p>\n
    members of unlawful assembly liable for actual   offence committed for the <\/p>\n
    death of   Salim Barayya and for   causing   injury to   others.     According to <\/p>\n
    learned   APP        the   learned   trial   Judge   lost  sight  of     crucial   aspect  of   the <\/p>\n
    evidence led regarding  vicarious penal liability  in respect of  armed  assault <\/p>\n
    upon   Salim   Barayya     and   others   by   the   unlawful   assembly.       Learned <\/p>\n
    Advocate Mr.R.M. Daga  submitted that  the  weapons articles 45 to 55   were <\/p>\n
    not found       stained with blood by the Chemical Analyser.   The submission <\/p>\n
    would not  carry much  importance in a case where offence is committed by <\/p>\n
    an unlawful  assembly while  slow rains   were in progress.  In such  case, it is <\/p>\n
    not  sine-qua-non  for   to   establish   guilt     of     members  thereof   to   trace     and <\/p>\n
    identify  weapons if  oral evidence of injured has  received corroboration from <\/p>\n
    the   medical   evidence.       Non-identification         or   improper  identification   of <\/p>\n
    weapons   would       not  affect  veracity     of     oral   evidence   of   an   eye   witness <\/p>\n
    particularly   when     incident is   otherwise corroborated   i.e.   by   medical <\/p>\n
    evidence and other circumstantial evidence on record,  i.e.  spot Panchnama, <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
    inquest  Panchnama, recovery  of weapons at the instance of  accused.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            The   evidence is  criticized by learned  defense Advocates on the <\/p>\n
    ground   that there   are certain   omissions in the evidence of eye witnesses <\/p>\n
    which  they  admitted with regard to their statement made to Police.   In our <\/p>\n
    opinion,     those   omissions   were   such     which   do   occur     in   the   evidence   of <\/p>\n
    truthful witnesses.   No criminal case is free from shortcomings as pointed out <\/p>\n
    to us from the   evidence on record.   The omissions   by themselves unless <\/p>\n
    material,   cannot uproot the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            Learned Advocate Shri R M  Daga  submitted that there  was no <\/p>\n
    evidence beyond reasonable   doubt to show that the appellants-convicts had <\/p>\n
    acted in furtherance of their common intention to murder the deceased.   It is <\/p>\n
    argued   that     the   appellants-convicts   could   not   have   been   held   liable     for <\/p>\n
    committing   offence punishable   under   section 302   read with section 34 <\/p>\n
    IPC..   It is    also submitted    that the conviction was based upon evidence of <\/p>\n
    interested witnesses who claimed that they  had seen incident which occurred <\/p>\n
    at   night   time.     Learned   Advocate   for   the   appellants   submits     further   that <\/p>\n
    injury  to  accused no.2   received   on left occipital  region, was suppressed by <\/p>\n
    the prosecution.   The failure   or omission on the part of the prosecution to <\/p>\n
    explain injury on the person of accused no.2 is very important circumstance <\/p>\n
    on the basis of   which the court can   draw   adverse inference against   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution on account of suppression  of relevant fact regarding the incident.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.            As     against   this,   learned   APP   who   supported   the   impugned <\/p>\n
    judgment     and   order   of   conviction     of   the   accused   for   offence   of   murder <\/p>\n
    submitted that the accused   were armed with deadly weapons like  sword and <\/p>\n
    spear etc. and   came with common object to commit murder of Salim   @ <\/p>\n
    Mahesh Barayya and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have  convicted  all <\/p>\n
    the accused under   section 302     with the aid of Section 149 IPC.   Learned <\/p>\n
    APP submitted  with reference to  plethora of rulings  on the subject that the <\/p>\n
    penal liability under section 149 IPC   is essentially a group   liability   when <\/p>\n
    offence is committed by five   or more offenders in prosecution of   common <\/p>\n
    object   or such offence is committed under such circumstances when all the <\/p>\n
    members       of   that   assembly     knew   it   to   be   likely     to   be   committed   in <\/p>\n
    prosecution   of   common   object,   then   every     person   who   at   the     time   of <\/p>\n
    commission   of offence  is member  of the same assembly   is guilty of that <\/p>\n
    offence.  The  essential ingredients  are :\n<\/p>\n
                   (i)           commission of offence by   any member of an \n\n\n\n\n\n                   unlawful  assembly, and; \n                   (ii)          such       offence   must   be     committed   in \n<\/pre>\n
                   prosecution of the common object  of the assembly  or must
\n                   be such as the members of that assembly knew it   to be <\/p>\n
                   likely    to  be   committed       in  prosecution  of   the  common
\n                   object.\n<\/p>\n
                  Once it is proved  or established that the   unlawful  assembly had <\/p>\n
    common object to commit offence, it  is not necessary    to establish that all <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
    the offenders \/members         of that   assembly committed some specific overt <\/p>\n
    act. The vicarious  penal liability is incurred by all members of the unlawful <\/p>\n
    assembly for the offence   committed by it   during the   continuance   of the <\/p>\n
    occurrence or incident,  based upon knowledge  before-hand   that the offence <\/p>\n
    actually  committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common <\/p>\n
    object.   Every case has to be judged on its own facts to  reach  a conclusion <\/p>\n
    as  to whether the  offence was committed to accomplish  a common object.\n<\/p>\n
    Such   common  object  need   not   be   proved   by  evidence   of   prior   meeting   or <\/p>\n
    pre-concert.  Offence committed is such which members knew    was likely to <\/p>\n
    be   committed.     It is     matter of common knowledge     that when group of <\/p>\n
    heavily armed men set out  to use force, they would  know that someone is <\/p>\n
    likely to be killed or injured.  The death  may or may not happen   but  each of <\/p>\n
    them   are   aware of   that likelihood   and therefore would be guilty under <\/p>\n
    second part of Section 149  IPC, as indicated  above. When group  or body of <\/p>\n
    persons ( five or more ) go   armed       with weapons like sword,       spear, <\/p>\n
    trident,    iron rod, stick,    it has to be said that each member of that  group <\/p>\n
    has knowledge   that murder       or culpable homicide     or such other serious <\/p>\n
    offence is likely to be   committed if the circumstances   as to the   weapons <\/p>\n
    carried  and other conduct of the members of that unlawful  assembly  clearly <\/p>\n
    points  out  to such  attributable   motive and  knowledge    on the  part of all <\/p>\n
    of them. Knowledge as to likelihood of the death   by  murder  or  culpable <\/p>\n
    homicide       not amounting to murder, can   be imputed to them dependent <\/p>\n
    upon conduct,  behaviour  of each of  the members of the unlawful assembly <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
    before, at the time of incident   and thereafter. Motive for the crime may be <\/p>\n
    relevant to determine     question of   fact keeping in view the nature of the <\/p>\n
    assembly   and   the   arms       carried   by   the   members   and   the   behaviour     of <\/p>\n
    members   at or near   scene of the incident while   criminal act is committed <\/p>\n
    and soon thereafter.  Every member   of  the unlawful assembly with unlawful <\/p>\n
    common  object  is  vicariously  punishable  as member thereof on account of <\/p>\n
    his knowledge   as to likelihood    of the offence which is actually committed.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, each member of the unlawful assembly may not have committed <\/p>\n
    the   overt     act       which   actually     caused   death   by     offence   of   murder   or <\/p>\n
    culpable homicide not amounting to murder.\n<\/p>\n
    9.             In   the   present     case,   learned   trial   Judge   appears   to   have <\/p>\n
    overlooked  that it has  come in evidence that the  accused who were  more <\/p>\n
    than five in number  were seen armed with lethal weapons, like  sword, spear, <\/p>\n
    iron rod, trident etc. when   five or more persons set out   armed with lethal <\/p>\n
    weapons  and commit offence by inflicting   injuries  upon victim or victims, it <\/p>\n
    is   not   necessary   to   attribute   overt     act   to   each   of   them   when   they     were <\/p>\n
    sharing  and pursuing  common object to assault.   Presence in the unlawful <\/p>\n
    assembly carrying an arm or weapon coupled with conduct may be   enough <\/p>\n
    to fasten criminal liability  upon assailants.\n<\/p>\n
    10.            Learned Advocate Mr Saini     argued that   there   would be   no <\/p>\n
    vicarious  liability if incident arose     due to free fight and   then section 149 <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
        IPC would not  be  attracted.  He relied upon the following rulings :\n<\/p>\n
        (1)         1979 Cri.L.J. 7 : (Bhajan singh  and others vs. State of Punjab)<\/p>\n
        (2)         AIR 1973 SC  2505 (Lalji and others vs.  State of U.P.)<\/a><\/p>\n
     (3)           AIR 1996 SC  3344 :(State of Haryana vs. Chandvir & others<\/a>)<\/p>\n
     (4)           AIR     1976 SC     2263: (Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of  <\/p>\n
                   Bihar)<\/p>\n
    It must be  observed upon  perusal  of the rulings that each case has to  turn on <\/p>\n
    its own facts.\n<\/p>\n
    11.            The   evidence led in this   case consists of PW 1 Suleiman Bapu <\/p>\n
    Miyan   who is an eye  witness and knew  all the  accused.  He had seen the <\/p>\n
    accused while they were  assaulting  by means of  rods and pipes.  He had seen <\/p>\n
    weapons in the hands of  accused as he described  that the accused Lalji (A-1) <\/p>\n
    had sword;    Sachin ( A-2) had spear;  Sandeep (A-3) had trident  and others <\/p>\n
    were armed with rods and some had stones.  He was also assaulted when he <\/p>\n
    tried to intervene.   Salim  Chate and Sandeep were beating Salim by  means <\/p>\n
    of  Trishul  (trident) and Bhala.   Salim had fallen on  the ground while other <\/p>\n
    accused  were also seen beating  Dilip   Barayya    by means of   trishul, rods, <\/p>\n
    stones;   Accused   Prakash     had   assaulted   by   means   of     stick     and   Kailash <\/p>\n
    assaulted by sword.     He had also identified weapons in Court.   During the <\/p>\n
    course of  cross-examination,   the eye witness was questioned  regarding few <\/p>\n
    omissions in the   statement made to police but in the admissions sought or <\/p>\n
    elicited   in the course of  cross-examination,  the witness is firm to  say that <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
    when he tried to intervene,   the accused Lalji had assaulted by sword.   The <\/p>\n
    witness   had denied the suggestion that   accused Sachin   and Sandeep were <\/p>\n
    proceeding from   Kharangana to Sevagram old village.       PW   1 also denied <\/p>\n
    suggestion that he  (PW 1) along with Johnnybhai,  Tahir, Mahesh Barayya , <\/p>\n
    Dilip Barayya, Ajiz  and Roshankhan assaulted by means of rods, swords and <\/p>\n
    bhala. It  also appears   from admission that  slow rains  was  going on  at the <\/p>\n
    time of incident.   PW 2 Tahir   also knew accused and had seen the incident.\n<\/p>\n
    He saw accused  assaulting  Johnnybhai   and Salim ( deceased ) and   Dilip <\/p>\n
    Barayya   by   means   of   sword   rods,     trishul     and   sticks.   Accused   Lalji   had <\/p>\n
    assaulted his father (PW 1)   while he  had also seen the accused Kailash and <\/p>\n
    Prakash   assaulting    by stick  and  sword  respectively.  While     trying to  save <\/p>\n
    himself     he was hit by     sword.   Thus,   accused   were seen   assaulting his <\/p>\n
    father, Johnnybhai, Salim   and Dilip Barayya and after 2\/3         minutes the <\/p>\n
    accused ran away  towards Adarsha Nagar. In the course  of cross-examination <\/p>\n
    he was questioned  about omissions  in his  statement made to police but much <\/p>\n
    importance  cannot be given to them particularly when   the present case has <\/p>\n
    multiple number of eye witnesses whose evidence has been corroborated by <\/p>\n
    medical evidence. PW 4   Jan Mohammed and PW 7   Ajij Bapu Miyan     are <\/p>\n
    the other eye witnesses examined  who saw  about 12   persons including the <\/p>\n
    accused who came to his hotel. He identified    the accused in the court  as the <\/p>\n
    same  persons who had damaged  the property and  articles  in the hotel  and <\/p>\n
    when questioned, accused Guddu had  assaulted him on his head by  rod Lalji <\/p>\n
    had   assaulted Suleiman.   Salim and Dilip had   tried to intervene. Accused <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
    Sachin  had  assaulted by means of  spear while  accused Suraj assualted Dilip <\/p>\n
    by means of rod.  Salim had died on spot.  Although   the incident occurred at <\/p>\n
    night   time,   the   evidence   indicated   that   there   was     gas   light     as   well   as <\/p>\n
    tubelight.  PW 4 denied   that there was commotion and Mahesh  (Salim)   fell <\/p>\n
    down on sharp edge   of tin embedded on earth and received injuries.   Such <\/p>\n
    suggestion in the course of cross-examination  by the defence proceeds on the <\/p>\n
    basis of   admitted presence of the   accused at the spot   and becomes risky <\/p>\n
    when    denied because ocular  version  received  corroboration from   rest of <\/p>\n
    the   evidence   led,   the   prosecution   can     establish   the   incident   beyond <\/p>\n
    reasonable doubts. PW 5   Shaikh   Babu  deposed   about happening prior to <\/p>\n
    the  incident.  He had  seen Lalji;  Sachin   Chute, Sandip Waghmare, Pramod <\/p>\n
    Goyal   going with weapons after he heard   voice     “Chalo Awjar Lo”   (Take <\/p>\n
    weapons and leave).   Dr.Seema Sute (PW 3)  performed autopsy    over dead <\/p>\n
    body of Mahesh @ Salim   Chotelal Barayya, on  whose body following injuries <\/p>\n
    were observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                   1)             Incised lacerated wound   measuring 5 cm x 2
\n                   cm and 3.5 cm in depth, present on anterior   side of fold
\n                   right  axilla oblique in direction.\n<\/p>\n
                   2)             Contused lacerated wound  measuring  2 cm x 1
\n                   cm in size present   on right cheek,   zygomatic   arch 1 cm
\n                   below angle  of right eye.\n<\/p>\n
                   3)             Contused lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x
\n                   2   cm   in   size   tringularly   shape,   present   just   above   right
\n                   mustache, It  was 1 cm away from ala of nose.\n<\/p>\n
                   4)             Linear   abrasion   3   cm   in   length   present       v.o.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
                   Right   cheek,   verticle   in   direction   3   cm   away   from   right <\/p>\n
                   angle of mouth.\n<\/p>\n
                   5)            Penetrating wound   measuring   4 cm x 1.5 cm <\/p>\n
                   cavity deep, situated  at posterior fold of left axilla Verticle
\n                   in direction clean cut margin acute  angle.\n<\/p>\n
                   6)            Split   laceration   7   cm   x   1     cm   bone   deep <\/p>\n
                   obliquely verticle in direction present over  vertex.\n<\/p>\n
                   7)            Superficial incised wound   tringular in shape 3
\n                   cm x 2 cm in size, present on posterior aspect of left thigh <\/p>\n
                   16 cm above left  knee..\n<\/p>\n
    She   opined that deceased died as a result of haemorrhage     and shock as a <\/p>\n
    result of injury to vital organ -lungs and that injuries    observed by her in PM <\/p>\n
    notes   (Exh.33)     were sufficient in   the ordinary course of nature to cause <\/p>\n
    death.    She had also examined    weapons   produced    before the Court and <\/p>\n
    opined   that   injuries     she   observed   (as   above   )       were   possible   by   those <\/p>\n
    weapons.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           Dr.Rajmohan  (PW 14) had examined injured Suleiman    Sheikh <\/p>\n
    (PW 1)  with following injuries :\n<\/p>\n
                  1)            Penetrating wound over the face lateral to the \n\n\n\n\n\n                  left  nose, bleeding present.\n                  2)            Avulation of the nostril with bleeding.\n                  3)            Clean out lacerated wound present in the right \n                  cheek.\n                  4)            Laceration of the lower eye   lip   extending up \n                  to the nasal breathe.\n                  5)            Abrasions   present   in   the   left     ear     with \n\n\n\n\n                                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>\n                                                  16<\/span>\n\n\n                bleeding, from the left ear.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                6)            Bleeding   present in the first finger tip on the \n                left side.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                7)            Contusions present over the abdomen.\n                8)            Lacerated   wound   present   in   the   left   parietal \n                region having  size 3 x 1 x 2 cm.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    .           He opined that the injuries were  grievous in nature.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
                He had also examined injured Dilip with following injuries :\n<\/p>\n
                1)    Multiple   contused   lacerated   wound   present   over   the <\/p>\n
                face of varying sizes.\n<\/p>\n
                2)             Contused lacerated wound present over the root
\n                of   nose,   swelling   present,   bleeding   present,   tenderness <\/p>\n
                present, crepitus present.\n<\/p>\n
                3)             Contused   lacerated   wound   present   left   side <\/p>\n
                occipital   region   of   size   7   x   1   x   2   cms.   Active   bleeding
\n                present.\n<\/p>\n
                4)             Contused   lacerated   wound   present   over   inner \n                side  of the lower lip.\n\n<\/pre>\n
    The above injuries in the opinion of the Doctor were  grievous  in nature.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         The learned trial Judge     therefore could not   have ignored   the <\/p>\n
    evidence referred above, which  implicated all the  accused  before the Court..\n<\/p>\n
    14.         The prosecution     had thus led sufficient   and reliable evidence <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
    beyond  reasonable   doubt that five  or more persons were involved in armed <\/p>\n
    assault including the accused.     They   had formed unlawful assembly which <\/p>\n
    was armed with  lethal weapons,  like sword, spear, trident,  iron rods etc and <\/p>\n
    caused death of   Salim   and injuries as above.   Non-explanation of   injury <\/p>\n
    suffered   by     one   of   the   accused   in   such   incident   of   armed   assault   is   not <\/p>\n
    material and prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the teneous   ground <\/p>\n
    that prosecution   did not explain injury  to such   accused in view of the ruling <\/p>\n
    in Suresh Sitaram Surve v. State of Maharashtra<\/a>  : 2003 All M R  (Cri) 394  <\/p>\n
    (SC):  {Three Judges Bench (Para 6)}.   The argument  that the injuries on the <\/p>\n
    person   of   accused   were   not   explained   by   the   prosecution   was     rejected   as <\/p>\n
    without substance. In the present case also,  the ratio  is  attracted in the facts <\/p>\n
    and circumstances, the accused   were identified     as   members of unlawful <\/p>\n
    assembly  and each of them were  attributable with knowledge   in the  facts <\/p>\n
    and circumstances brought on record about likelihood    of consequences   of <\/p>\n
    their armed assault as none of them could have  feigned ignorance   of likely <\/p>\n
    consequences    of death of Salim   @ Mahesh  as   a  result of collective assault <\/p>\n
    by them.  As  regards the arguments  advanced about the injury on the person <\/p>\n
    of one of the   accused Sandip, the Investigating Officer (PW 13)  PSI     Vijay <\/p>\n
    Kuhikar     in   Paragrpah   26       of   his   evidence       stated   in   the   cross   of   cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination as  follows:\n<\/p>\n
                     “Sandip     Waghmare   was     arrested   on  3.7.2003.     It  had
\n                     come to my notice that Sandip Waghmare   was   injured.
\n                     Sandip   Waghmare had not lodged any report   and so I <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
                    had not taken  it.  I had conducted investigation regarding <\/p>\n
                    injuries to Sandip Waghmare   separately.   Those papers
\n                    are not on record.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    These admissions by the Investigating Officer probabilise the   theory   that the <\/p>\n
    unlawful assembly may  have caused death of Salim  @  Mahesh Barayya   in a <\/p>\n
    sudden   fight,   in the hit of   passion, upon   sudden quarrel and, therefore, <\/p>\n
    each member of the unlawful assembly in the facts and circumstances revealed <\/p>\n
    from   the   record   would   get     benefit   of     exception   (4)   to   Section   300   IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    regarding  culpable homicide  of Salim @ Mahesh  which occurred  as a  result <\/p>\n
    of collective   assault by them.     Hence,     each of them can   safely   be   held <\/p>\n
    guilty under part one  of   Section 304  of IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, <\/p>\n
    in addition  to offence proved under  section 326 read with section 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    15.           We have heard learned Advocates   for the appellants in both the <\/p>\n
    Appeals   as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor   for the State on the <\/p>\n
    point   of   sentence.     After   hearing   them,   we   are   satisfied   that   the   following <\/p>\n
    order  would meet the ends of justice:-\n<\/p>\n
                  In   the   result,   Criminal   Appeal   No.3\/2006     is     partly   allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    Conviction and sentence of the appellants therein for the offence punishable <\/p>\n
    under  section 302  read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is  set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    Instead,   appellants  stand convicted for the offence punishable under section <\/p>\n
    304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code   and  are sentenced to suffer RI for  seven <\/p>\n
    years.   Sentence  as regards fine is maintained.  Appellants  are said to be in <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
    custody\/jail  since the date of their  arrest and if they  have already undergone <\/p>\n
    the substantive sentence of imprisonment,  they be   released forthwith, if not <\/p>\n
    required  in any other pending criminal case.\n<\/p>\n
                   As regards Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2006  preferred by the State <\/p>\n
    of Maharashtra, the  same is also partly allowed.   Acquittal of original accused <\/p>\n
    No. 6 ( respondent no.4 herein)- Ankush   Bhaurao   Masram     is   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondents Nos. 1 to 8     are held guilty   for  the offence punishable under <\/p>\n
    section 304 Part-I read with Section 149   of the Indian Penal Code and upon <\/p>\n
    conviction, each of them is   sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment   for <\/p>\n
    seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000\/- each, in default, to suffer   further <\/p>\n
    RI   for three months. Accused-Respondents  1 to  8    herein  are directed to <\/p>\n
    surrender to their bail bonds to     serve out the   sentence.   Conviction and <\/p>\n
    sentence   of respondents 1 to 3 and   5 to 8     under section 326 read with <\/p>\n
    section 149 of the Indian Penal Code  is maintained. Respondent No.4-Ankush <\/p>\n
    Masram   shall also undergo  sentence  under section 326  read with section <\/p>\n
    149 IPC   same as  respondent nos.1  to 3  and 5 to 8  were  sentenced in the <\/p>\n
    trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
                   Accused would be entitled to set  off under section 428  Cr.P.C.  in <\/p>\n
    both the Appeals.   Appeals  stand disposed of  accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                       JUDGE                                               JUDGE\n\n    sahare\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:02 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 \/2006 & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120\/2006 Criminal Appeal No. 3\/2006: 1) Sachin s\/o Keshao Chate Aged 26 years 2) […]<\/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-226169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated ... on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated ... on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T20:35:40+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T20:35:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3954,\"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\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated ... on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T20:35:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated ... on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated ... on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T20:35:40+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T20:35:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010"},"wordCount":3954,"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\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010","name":"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated ... on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T20:35:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-vs-multiple-contused-lacerated-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sachin vs Multiple Contused Lacerated … on 24 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226169","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=226169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}