{"id":233699,"date":"2009-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-13T14:13:02","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T08:43:02","slug":"prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n    Ladda\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.530 OF 2004\n\n\n            Shakil Karim Tamboli,\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n            age   30   years,   r\/o\n            Kavathe        Mahankal\n            District    Sangli   at\n            present    Lodged    in\n            Sangli         District\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n            Prison, Sangli.\n                     ...Appellant.\n                        \n                                  Versus\n                       \n        1. The      State        of\n           Maharashtra\n      \n\n\n        2. Sunita       Balasaheb\n           Shitole            r\/o\n   \n\n\n\n           Vidyanagar,    Kavathe\n           Mahankal,        Dist.\n           Sangli.\n                  ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Shri Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the Appellant.\n\n\n    Mrs M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P., for the State.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                              CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                              DATE : 08TH MAY,2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
    1.   It is the appeal preferred by the appellant – original<\/p>\n
    accused no.3 against the sentence and order passed by the 3rd<\/p>\n
    Ad   hoc   Additional   Sessions       Judge,    Sangli        (hereinafter<\/p>\n
    referred to as (“the trial Court”) dated 18.3.2004. By the<\/p>\n
    said impugned judgment and order present appellant, along<\/p>\n
    with co – accused nos. 1 and 2 was convicted for the offence<\/p>\n
    punishable under Section 376(2)(g) (a) read with Section 34<\/p>\n
    of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.for short) and was sentenced<\/p>\n
    to suffer R.I.,for ten years and fine of Rs. 2,000\/- in<\/p>\n
    default to suffer further R.I., for one year. He was also<\/p>\n
    convicted along with co-accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence<\/p>\n
    punishable under Section 376, read with section 34 of the<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I., for seven<\/p>\n
    years and fine of Rs. 500\/- in default R.I., for one year.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly, the appellant was convicted along with accused<\/p>\n
    nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 452<\/p>\n
    r.w.s. 34 of the I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer R.I., for<\/p>\n
    three years and fine of Rs. 500\/- in default R.I., for six<\/p>\n
    months, so also the appellant was convicted along with co-\n<\/p>\n
    accused for the offence punishable under sections 324, 323,<\/p>\n
    506, 504 read with section 34 of the I.P.C., and sentenced<\/p>\n
    to suffer R.I., respectively for one year, six months, three<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    years and six months.            All the substantive sentences were<\/p>\n
    directed to run concurrently.                  Perused R and P and the<\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of total seven prosecution witnesses<\/p>\n
    led before the Trial Court.                 Also, heard rival submissions<\/p>\n
    at length on earlier dates and also on today.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          In   order   to appreciate             the   rival arguments               and<\/p>\n
    also   mainly    the     arguments          advanced      on     behalf         of     the<\/p>\n
    appellant   accused      no.3,    the       case   of    the     prosecution,            as<\/p>\n
    unfolded before the Trial Court, can be narrated as under.\n<\/p>\n
    3.
\n                Prosecutrix P.W.1 was married with one Balasaheb<\/p>\n
    Shitole in the year 1990.            However, thereafter, there were<\/p>\n
    disputes between them. Her husband started residing with<\/p>\n
    another woman.      Prosecutrix and her husband started staying<\/p>\n
    separately since about seven to eight years prior to the<\/p>\n
    incident, which took place on 11.9.2002.                         Prosecutrix had<\/p>\n
    constructed one hut like          room on the plot of the land which<\/p>\n
    she got from the brother of the present appellant-accused<\/p>\n
    no.3. She resided in that place along with her son P.W.4,<\/p>\n
    then aged about 13 years. The incident of rape happened on<\/p>\n
    the night between 11 and 12 September, 2002 when prosecutrix<\/p>\n
    and her son were sleeping at home.                  At about 10.00 p.m., or<\/p>\n
    so, there was knocking on the door and accused nos. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
    were asking the prosecutrix to open the door.                               They used<\/p>\n
    filthy language to the prosecutrix.                 Suspecting steps of the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
    accused    persons,       she   initially    did      not    open       the      door.\n<\/p>\n
    However,    subsequently        one    neighbour      P.W.3      Smt.      Kashibai<\/p>\n
    arrived on the spot.            She was knowing the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
    She asked the prosecutrix to open the door saying that the<\/p>\n
    outsiders    were    known      persons.    On   this,       the      prosecutrix<\/p>\n
    opened the door and then accused nos. 1 and                       2 entered the<\/p>\n
    room.      Present    appellant        accused   no.3       remained         outside<\/p>\n
    watching the situation. Accused nos. 1 and 2 gave threat to<\/p>\n
    P.W.3 Kashibai of dire consequences and asked her to leave<\/p>\n
    to place and to keep quite. On such threats, Kashibai took<\/p>\n
    the young son of the prosecutrix along with her and left the<\/p>\n
    place. Both accused nos. 1 and 2 after entering the room<\/p>\n
    closed the door from inside and uttered filthy language to<\/p>\n
    the prosecutrix. They forcibly make her naked by removing<\/p>\n
    her clothes. They also, one after the another, removed their<\/p>\n
    clothes and had forcible intercourse and also indulged in<\/p>\n
    unnatural intercourse with the prosecutrix. In order to see<\/p>\n
    that she should not raise any shouts her mouth was gagged by<\/p>\n
    hands of accused nos. 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          When    the    above      incident   of    sexual       assault         and<\/p>\n
    forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix was going on<\/p>\n
    in her room, P.W.3 neighbour Kashibai had been to her other<\/p>\n
    tenants and apprised them of the incident and thereafter<\/p>\n
    went to the local police station and obtained police help.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Police persons arrived on the spot in police vehicle.                                 P.W.6<\/p>\n
    arrived      on    the   spot.        According       to     said      P.W.6       present<\/p>\n
    accused no.3 ran away from outside the room of prosecutrix<\/p>\n
    after seeing the arrival of police party.                           Directions were<\/p>\n
    given to the prosecutrix to open the door saying that the<\/p>\n
    police persons had arrived on the spot.                             The prosecutrix<\/p>\n
    opened the door and came out at the same time accused nos. 1<\/p>\n
    and 2 also tried to come out and they were wearing their<\/p>\n
    clothes. They were apprehended and detained by the police<\/p>\n
    party<\/p>\n
    lodged
\n             and<\/p>\n
                her
\n                      were
\n                             taken<\/p>\n
                       complaint
\n                                     to    the<\/p>\n
                                     immediately
\n                                                    police<\/p>\n
                                                          at
\n                                                               station.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               the      early\n                                                                                Prosecutrix\n\n                                                                                    hours       on\n                            \n<\/pre>\n
    12.9.2002. On her complaint narrating the incident of sexual<\/p>\n
    assault and forcible sexual inter course by accused nos. 1<\/p>\n
    and 2 and disclosing the presence of accused appellant no. 3<\/p>\n
    outside the room during the entire episode of gang rape,<\/p>\n
    F.I.R., came to be lodged at about 00.35 on 12.9.2002.\n<\/p>\n
    5.             Admittedly, accused nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended<\/p>\n
    on    the    spot,       their   clothes         were      taken        charge         under<\/p>\n
    panchnama.        Subsequently,       scene      of     offence        panchnama          was<\/p>\n
    conducted. Thereafter, revealing the role of the appellant,<\/p>\n
    he was put under arrest on 12.9.2002, in that night itself.\n<\/p>\n
    Admittedly, since then the appellant is in jail till today.\n<\/p>\n
    Prosecutrix and the arrested accused nos. 1 and 2 were sent<\/p>\n
    for   medical       examination       and        medical        certificates            were<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    obtained.     Biological      samples        of    prosecutrix         and      accused<\/p>\n
    persons were sent for chemical analysis, so also the clothes<\/p>\n
    were   sent    for    analysis     and       relevant      C.A.      Reports         were<\/p>\n
    obtained. After completion of investigation charge sheet was<\/p>\n
    filed and matter was committed to the Court of Sessions<\/p>\n
    being Sessions case no. 169 of 2002 and was disposed of by<\/p>\n
    the impugned judgment and order, as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           Reportedly,       original           accused       no.1        preferred<\/p>\n
    separate appeal however, the same came to be dismissed for<\/p>\n
    no   steps<\/p>\n
    preferred
\n                  taken.\n<\/p>\n
                  any
\n                           ig Also,<\/p>\n
                         appeal.<\/p>\n
\n                                      reportedly\n\n                                      Present\n                                                         accused\n\n                                                      appeal      is\n                                                                        no.2\n\n                                                                         preferred\n                                                                                  has      not\n\n                                                                                             by\n                         \n<\/pre>\n
    appellant-accused no.3. Admittedly, it is the case of the<\/p>\n
    prosecution that appellant accused no.3 was not the person<\/p>\n
    who actually indulged in the activity of sexual assault and<\/p>\n
    forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix.                          However, he<\/p>\n
    was one of the associates of main accused nos. 1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
    was guarding the house and in fact instigated accused nos. 1<\/p>\n
    and 2 to commit such sexual assault on the prosecutrix.                                  In<\/p>\n
    the present appeal, it is to be ascertained whether the<\/p>\n
    presence      of    the    appellant         outside     the       house       of      the<\/p>\n
    prosecutrix during the entire incident was accepted rightly<\/p>\n
    and so also his involvement in the said incident is taken as<\/p>\n
    established.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           During the arguments, learned Advocate Shri Dilip<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Bodake appearing for the appellant submitted that there is<\/p>\n
    no any active role taken by the appellant in the actual<\/p>\n
    commission     of    offence     of   gang     rape     and      what     is     alleged<\/p>\n
    against him is only his association with the co-accused and<\/p>\n
    his alleged presence outside the house and as to his escape<\/p>\n
    after   seeing      the   police      party.    It     is     also      argued        that<\/p>\n
    considering         the    admitted          relationship             between           the<\/p>\n
    prosecutrix and one Afsar Tamboli, brother of the present<\/p>\n
    appellant, false implication of the appellant could not be<\/p>\n
    ruled   out.     Duringig  the     arguments,         it<\/p>\n
    according to the substantive evidence of the prosecutrix
\n                                                                is     submitted          that<\/p>\n
    P.W.1 herself, she had admitted the illicit relations with<\/p>\n
    said Afsar Tamboli and that her room was constructed on<\/p>\n
    about one guntha plot belonging to Afsar Tamboli and which<\/p>\n
    was given to her by the said Afsar Tamboli on executing a<\/p>\n
    bond of Rs.100\/- stamp paper. During the arguments it is<\/p>\n
    also brought to the notice of this Court by referring to the<\/p>\n
    contents of Exhibit 5 which is an affidavit, allegedly sworn<\/p>\n
    by the prosecutrix and which is dated 3.1.2003. After going<\/p>\n
    through the record and proceedings of the matter, it appears<\/p>\n
    that the said exhibit 5 came to be taken on record by the<\/p>\n
    Trial Court at the time of hearing of the bail application.\n<\/p>\n
    Reliance was placed on the contents of the said affidavit to<\/p>\n
    substantiate the case of the appellant accused no.3 that his<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    name    was     falsely    taken      due       to    misunderstanding              by     the<\/p>\n
    prosecutrix and that only accused nos. 1 and 2 were the<\/p>\n
    culprits. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
    place his reliance on the following authorities.\n<\/p>\n
            (1)    2007 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 145<\/p>\n
            Baban Govind Tope & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra &<\/p>\n
            Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
            (2)    1991 (1) Mh.L.J. 692.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n            Anmol     Shridhar      Gharde          and    others         vs.       State        of\n\n            Maharashtra.<\/a>\n\n            (3)<\/span>\n                            \n<\/pre>\n
                    2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2955 Navnath Namdeo Maske & Anr<\/p>\n
            vs. State of Maharashtra.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
    8.             Counter to the above arguments, it is brought to<\/p>\n
    the notice by the learned A.P.P., Mrs M.H. Mhatre for the<\/p>\n
    State that had the contents of such affidavit Exhibit 5 were<\/p>\n
    true and correct to the knowledge of the prosecutrix herself<\/p>\n
    then there would not have been a detail cross-examination of<\/p>\n
    prosecutrix and only the question as to she taking the name<\/p>\n
    of accused no.3 due to misunderstanding would have served<\/p>\n
    the purpose.        It is further brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
    Court     on    behalf     of   the    State          that    during         the      cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination        of     the   prosecutrix            P.W.1,         when       she       was<\/p>\n
    confronted with the contents of the said affidavit Exh.5,<\/p>\n
    she had specifically stated that she was put under the fear<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    of killing and as such her signature was obtained on the<\/p>\n
    said affidavit.          On this aspect, it is significant to note<\/p>\n
    that the prosecutrix is an illiterate woman and studied upto<\/p>\n
    3rd standard as per her substantive evidence.                                   The contents<\/p>\n
    of    the    affidavit      though      are       in    Marathi,          it      is    a    typed<\/p>\n
    document and bearing the signature of the prosecutrix at the<\/p>\n
    end    and    it   speaks      to    the    effect       that        she      was      not       sure<\/p>\n
    whether Shakil Tamboli (the appellant) had been to her house<\/p>\n
    or not on the night of the incident and that she had taken<\/p>\n
            inside     the<\/p>\n
    the intimation of accused No.3 as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who<\/p>\n
    were                      room       were    taking          the     name      of      ‘Shakil’,<\/p>\n
    ‘Shakil’. It must be said that the contents of the said<\/p>\n
    affidavit have been repudiated by the prosecutrix and she<\/p>\n
    had given a reason under what circumstances it was signed by<\/p>\n
    her.         Definitely,       much    after          filing        of     such        affidavit<\/p>\n
    recording of evidence in the matter started and if it was<\/p>\n
    her own say as to inadvertently taking the name of accused<\/p>\n
    no.3 in the complaint, such type of evidence would have<\/p>\n
    occurred when she was put to cross-examination on behalf of<\/p>\n
    accused      no.3.       However,      it        is    not     the     case       and       in   the<\/p>\n
    result, in the opinion of this Court the contents of such<\/p>\n
    affidavit Exhibit 5 cannot be taken shelter on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    appellant      accused      no.3.           In    other        words,        it     cannot        be<\/p>\n
    accepted       that      the        prosecutrix          has         inadvertently               and<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
    mistakenly       taken      the    name       of    Shakil      Tamboli,         appellant<\/p>\n
    accused    no.3      as    the    person      remaining        outside        the      courts<\/p>\n
    during the incident of rape.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          Apart          from    the     above,        there        is      substantive<\/p>\n
    evidence    of    the      neighbour       of      the   prosecutrix          P.W.3       Smt.\n<\/p>\n
    Kashibai, P.W.4 a young 13 years old                       Pratap Shitole, son of<\/p>\n
    the prosecutrix and also the evidence of P.W. 6 Police Naik,<\/p>\n
    Tatyasaheb Patil. In the opinion of this Court, on careful<\/p>\n
    scrutiny    of       the    substantive         evidence        of     above       referred<\/p>\n
    prosecution witnesses goes to show that there was definitely<\/p>\n
    an involvement of appellant accused no.3 and that he was the<\/p>\n
    associate of main accused nos. 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Apart from            the above,         even the         defence witness<\/p>\n
    examined on behalf of the appellant-accused does not inspire<\/p>\n
    confidence,       inasmuch        as,    apart      from     his      words       there       is<\/p>\n
    nothing to substantiate that the appellant was not on the<\/p>\n
    spot and was at home till 12 mid night. The said defence<\/p>\n
    witness    is        the    brother      of     appellant.           He     specifically<\/p>\n
    submitted       as     to     having          illicit       relations           with        the<\/p>\n
    prosecutrix and as to giving her the plot of the land, about<\/p>\n
    one guntha, on which the prosecutrix had constructed her<\/p>\n
    house   and      stayed      there       along      with     her     son.          He     also<\/p>\n
    specifically mentioned as to having the frequent visits with<\/p>\n
    her. However, further came with a case that his brother<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Shakil Tamboli was at home since 9.00 p.m., to 12.00 mid<\/p>\n
    night of the night of 11th September, 2002 and only at about<\/p>\n
    2:30 in or when the police party came to his house, he and<\/p>\n
    his brother Shakil Tamboli then sleeping at the house were<\/p>\n
    dragged out by the police and were taken to the police<\/p>\n
    station.\n<\/p>\n
    11.        Considering     the     substantive       evidence         of     earlier<\/p>\n
    referred prosecution witnesses, defence of the accused even<\/p>\n
    on preponderance of probability cannot be accepted and it<\/p>\n
    12.<\/p>\n
    was rightly considered by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
               In the above circumstances, in the opinion of this<\/p>\n
    Court,   the   involvement    of    accused      no.3      has     been      rightly<\/p>\n
    established in the offences charged. However, considering<\/p>\n
    the specific case of the prosecution and the role given to<\/p>\n
    the appellant accused no.3, as to through out the incident<\/p>\n
    remaining outside the house, in the opinion of this Court,<\/p>\n
    the case against him can be viewed differently than that<\/p>\n
    which is against accused nos. 1 and 2.                 In other words, the<\/p>\n
    circumstances    prompt    this     Court   to    take      recourse          to    the<\/p>\n
    proviso to Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
    which speaks that for adequate reasons the punishment of<\/p>\n
    imprisonment    can   be     less    than     the      minimum         ten       years<\/p>\n
    prescribed by law. In the opinion of this Court, here it is<\/p>\n
    a matter in which it would be just and proper to exercise<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    such discretion and to treat the matter under the proviso as<\/p>\n
    mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
    13.        In that event, it would be just and proper to<\/p>\n
    lower down the sentence of ten years imposed for the offence<\/p>\n
    punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of the I.P.C., to seven<\/p>\n
    years.   Apart   from       this   modification       there       is    nothing         to<\/p>\n
    alter the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
    14.        In    the    result, the           conviction     of the         appellant<\/p>\n
    accused no.3 is upheld for the offence for which he is<\/p>\n
    convicted by the impugned judgment and order. However, the<\/p>\n
    sentence is accordingly reduced as under.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ORDER<\/p>\n
      1. Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2004 is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
          Conviction       of    the    appellant      accused        no.3       for      the<\/p>\n
          offence charged and for which he is convicted by the<\/p>\n
          impugned     judgment        and    order    dated       18.3.2004           shall<\/p>\n
          sustain.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The imprisonment of ten years awarded for the offence<\/p>\n
          under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code is<\/p>\n
          reduced to the imprisonment for seven years.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Remaining part of the impugned judgment and order shall<\/p>\n
          sustain.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   A.R.JOSHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Ladda<\/p>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY<\/p>\n
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.530 OF 2004<\/p>\n
            Shakil           Karim
\n            Tamboli,     age    30
\n            years, r\/o Kavathe<\/p>\n
            Mahankal      District
\n            Sangli   at    present
\n            Lodged
\n            District
\n            Sangli.\n<\/p>\n
                      in ig Sangli
\n                           Prison,
\n                                ..\n<\/p>\n
            Appellant..<\/p>\n
\n                       \n                                     Versus\n      \n\n\n        1 The     State        of\n   \n\n\n\n        . Maharashtra\n\n        2 Sunita     Balasaheb\n        . Shitole          r\/o\n\n\n\n\n\n          Vidyanagar, Kavathe\n          Mahankal,\n          Dist.Sangli.\n               ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Shri Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Mrs M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P., for the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
                                          DATE : 08TH MAY,2009.\n<\/p>\n
                          OPERATIVE ORDER<\/p>\n
    1. Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2004 is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      Conviction    of   the    appellant     accused        no.3       for      the<\/p>\n
      offence charged and for which he is convicted by the<\/p>\n
      impugned     judgment    and    order   dated       18.3.2004           shall<\/p>\n
      sustain.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The imprisonment of ten years awarded for the offence<\/p>\n
      under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code is<\/p>\n
      reduced to the imprisonment for seven years.\n<\/p>\n
    3. Remaining part of the impugned judgment and order shall<\/p>\n
      sustain.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          A.R.JOSHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:35:44 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 Bench: A. R. Joshi 1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.530 OF 2004 Shakil Karim Tamboli, age 30 years, r\/o Kavathe Mahankal District Sangli at present Lodged in Sangli District Prison, Sangli. …Appellant. Versus […]<\/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-233699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 - 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\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-13T08:43:02+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\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T08:43:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2565,\"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\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T08:43:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 - 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\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-13T08:43:02+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\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T08:43:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009"},"wordCount":2565,"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\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009","name":"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T08:43:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prison-vs-the-state-of-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prison vs The State Of on 8 May, 2009"}]},{"@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\/233699","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=233699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}