{"id":234234,"date":"1994-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994"},"modified":"2015-09-05T22:33:41","modified_gmt":"2015-09-05T17:03:41","slug":"amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994","title":{"rendered":"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M. M Punchhi, K. Jayachandra Reddy<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nReview Petition (civil)  999 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nAmrutlal Someshwar Joshi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/09\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nM. M Punchhi &amp; K. Jayachandra Reddy\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1994 Supp(3) SCR 23<\/p>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Amrutal Someshwar Joshi, the petitioner in this review petition is the<br \/>\nappellant in Criminal Appeal No. 87\/94 which has been dismissed by us on<br \/>\n10.8.94. The appellant has been convicted by the trial court under Section<br \/>\n302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death. The same has been confirmed by the High<br \/>\nCourt. We heard Criminal Appeal No. 87\/94 filed by him in this Court at<br \/>\nlength and ultimately dismissed the same holding that the appellant killed<br \/>\nthree persons including a child aged about three years in a brutal and<br \/>\ndiabolical manner with a view to commit robbery. We also held that the<br \/>\nmotive was henious and the crime committed was a cold-blooded, brutal and<br \/>\ndiabolical one and that his case fell within the category of &#8216;rarest of<br \/>\nrare cases&#8217;. Accordingly we confirmed the judgments of the courts below<br \/>\nawarding death sentence to the petitioner herein. Hence the present Review<br \/>\nPetition has been filed seeking review of our judgment dated 10.8.94 in<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal No. 87\/94.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. In the meanwhile a separate petition dated 22.8.94 to review the<br \/>\njudgment in Criminal Appeal No. 87\/94 sent by the convicted accused from<br \/>\njail is received which is not separately numbered. In this review petition<br \/>\nas well as the regular review petition filed through counsel, some points<br \/>\nregarding appreciation of evidence by this Court have been raised. We have<br \/>\nexamined these points and we see no merit in any of them. It may be<br \/>\nmentioned here that all the relevant evidence has been considered in detail<br \/>\nand thereafter we reached the conclusion that the said items of evidence<br \/>\nconsidered by us by themselves are sufficient to bring home the guilt to<br \/>\nthe accused and we accordingly confirmed the concurrent findings of the<br \/>\ncourts below. There is no need to consider each one of them again in these<br \/>\nreview petitions. We any incidentally mention here that in the petition<br \/>\nsent from jail the convicted accused has given his age as 25 years. He,<br \/>\nhowever, has not raised may point regarding his age stating it should be<br \/>\ntaken as a mitigating circumstance. Learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nhowever, mainly concentrated on the age of the convicted accused on the<br \/>\ndate of commission of the offence in support of his plea that the young age<br \/>\nshould be treated as a mitigating circumstances in the matter of awarding<br \/>\ndeath sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Since this is a case of death sentence, we have heard the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the State.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on the<br \/>\ndate of occurrence i.e. 4.8.87 was only 17 years old and therefore having<br \/>\nregard to his age, death sentence ought not to have been awarded. In<br \/>\nsupport of this submission strong reliance is placed on a judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1016332\/\">Harnam v. State of U.P.<\/a>  : 1976CriLJ1642 which<br \/>\nwas followed in <a href=\"\/doc\/1930734\/\">Raisul v. State of U.P.<\/a>  : 1977CriLJ1555 .<br \/>\nIn Harnam&#8217;s case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, as he then was, having held that<br \/>\nthe crime committed by the appellant was a most reprehensible and heinous<br \/>\ndisclosing brutality and callousness to human life, yet having noted that<br \/>\nthe appellant was of 16 years of age at the time of commission of crime,<br \/>\nhowever, held that a murderer who is below 18 years of age at the time of<br \/>\ncommission of the offence should be considered to be &#8220;too young&#8221; and that<br \/>\n&#8220;he would be entitled to the clemency of penal justice and it would not be<br \/>\nappropriate to impose the extreme penalty of death on him&#8221;. In Raisul&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, who spoke for the Bench in a short judgment<br \/>\nfollowing the judgment in Harnam&#8217;s case, again held that the appellant<br \/>\nRaisul was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence<br \/>\nand therefore death sentence should not have been imposed on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, submitted<br \/>\nthat the age of the accused is one of the mitigating circumstances and that<br \/>\nif the accused is young he shall not be sentenced to death. In this context<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in<br \/>\nBachan Singh v. State of Punjab etc. etc.  : [1980] 2 SCC<br \/>\n20 and Shankar @ Gauri Shankar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\n : 1994CriLJ3071 . It may be mentioned here that in Bachan<br \/>\nSingh&#8217;s case, a Constitution Bench of this Court mentioned some aggravating<br \/>\ncircumstances warranting the imposition of death sentence and also<br \/>\nmentioned some mitigating circumstances and age of the accused was<br \/>\nmentioned to be one such mitigating circumstance. It was also observed by<br \/>\nthis Court that &#8220;There are numerous other circumstances justifying the<br \/>\npassing of the lighter sentence as there are countervailing circumstances<br \/>\nof aggravation. We cannot obviously feed into a judicial computer all such<br \/>\nsituations, since they are astrological imponderables in an imperfect and<br \/>\nundulating society.&#8221; <a href=\"\/doc\/545301\/\">In Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab<\/a><br \/>\n : [1980] 3 SCC 470 a Bench of three Judges of this Court<br \/>\nhaving noted the principles laid down in Bachan Singh&#8217;s case observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may<br \/>\nbe asked and answered:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of<br \/>\nimprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative<br \/>\nbut to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the<br \/>\nmitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?\n<\/p>\n<p>If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light<br \/>\nof the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the<br \/>\nquestions posed hereinabove, the circumstances of the case are such that<br \/>\ndeath sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Allauddin Mian and Ors. v. State of Bihar : 1989CriLJ1466 this Court<br \/>\nafter referring to Bachan Singh&#8217;s case observed thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>That is why this Court in Bachan Singh&#8217;s case observed that when the<br \/>\nquestion of choice of sentence is under consideration the Court must not<br \/>\nonly look to the crime and the victim but also the circumstances of the<br \/>\ncriminal and the Impact of the crime on the community.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Neither In Bachan Singh&#8217;s case decided by a Constitution Bench nor in<br \/>\nMachhi Singh&#8217;s case nor in Allauddin Mian&#8217;s case, which are later in point<br \/>\nof time, there is any reference to Harnam&#8217;s case or Raisul&#8217;s case nor there<br \/>\nis any indication in those three later cases that a person aged about 18<br \/>\nyears of age on the date of commission of the offence should under no<br \/>\ncircumstances be sentenced to death. We are only referring to this aspect<br \/>\nto show that there is no inflexible rule that a criminal aged about 17 or<br \/>\n18 years should never be sentenced to death irrespective of other<br \/>\ncircumstances, however aggravating they may be.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the view<br \/>\ntaken in Harnam&#8217;s case or Raisul&#8217;s case certainly comes to the rescue of<br \/>\nthe petitioner who was aged only about 17 years at the time of commission<br \/>\nof the offence. Assuming for argument sake that this Court in these two<br \/>\ncases has laid down that the accused who is under 18 years of age should<br \/>\nnot be sentenced to death, still the important question to be considered in<br \/>\nthis case is whether the petitioner was aged only 17 years on the date of<br \/>\ncommission of the offence as is being claimed. The date of the occurrence<br \/>\nin this case was 4.8.87. The accused-petitioner when examined under Section<br \/>\n313 Cr.P.C. on 26.8.92 gave his aged to be about 22 years. Relying on this,<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel submitted that the age of the petitioner on 4.8.87 i.e.<br \/>\nthe date of commission of the offence, was only about 17 years and<br \/>\ntherefore death sentence should not have been imposed. The trial court<br \/>\nafter having convicted the petitioner under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C.<br \/>\nexamined the accused on the next day on the point of sentence after<br \/>\nexplaining the sum and substance of the reasoning of its judgment. The<br \/>\naccused stated that justice has not been done to him and that considering<br \/>\nhis young age, the court should show him the sympathy. The learned trial<br \/>\nJudge also heard the advocate for the accused on the point of sentence who<br \/>\nstated that when the offence was committed, the accused was of 17 years of<br \/>\nage. The public prosecutor contended that the accused was not 17 years of<br \/>\nage at the time of commission of offence placing reliance on a true copy of<br \/>\nthe school leaving certificate of the accused in which his date of birth<br \/>\nwas mentioned as 1.5.67. The learned trial Judge held that the accused was<br \/>\nnot of 17 years of age relying on the said certificate. It is very<br \/>\npertinent to note that nobody questioned the authenticity of the said<br \/>\ncertificate. The learned Trial Judge after elaborate discussion on the<br \/>\nquestion of sentence and also on the question of age ultimately held that<br \/>\nthis is a case where death sentence alone would meet the ends of justice.<br \/>\nBefore the High Court, on question of sentence, the learned Counsel for<br \/>\naccused urged that the accused was a young man of about 20 years of age.<br \/>\nThe High Court, however, having taken all the circumstances and findings of<br \/>\nthe court below into consideration, by its judgment dated 26.10.93<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. We are unable to<br \/>\nunderstand as to how the petitioner who gave his age as 22 years on 26.8.92<br \/>\nwhen examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. could be of 20 years of age in the<br \/>\nyear 1993 when the High Court heard the appeal. Likewise in the special<br \/>\nleave petition filed in this Court on 27.1.94 the age of the petitioner is<br \/>\ngiven as 20 years. Strangely in the review petition dated 22.8.94 sent by<br \/>\nthe convicted accused from jail, which is also attested by the Jail<br \/>\nSuperintendent, he has given his age as 25 years. If one goes by this age,<br \/>\nthen he would have almost completed 18 years on the date of commission of<br \/>\nthe offence. We are only pointing out these aspects only to show that the<br \/>\nage as such given by the accused or by his advocates at various stages<br \/>\ndifferently is of no consequence and cannot be given any weight. Even<br \/>\nbefore the High Court, the authenticity of the date of birth of the<br \/>\nappellant as given in the school leaving certificate has not been<br \/>\nquestioned. Consequently the statement of the accused regarding his age<br \/>\ncannot be the criteria to hold that he was below 18 years of age on the<br \/>\ndate of commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nhowever, submitted that the accused has not been questioned separately with<br \/>\nreference to the date of birth given in the school leaving certificate and<br \/>\ntherefore that cannot be acted upon. We see no force in this submission. It<br \/>\nis only after the conclusion of the trial and after rendering the judgment,<br \/>\nthe accused as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. was questioned in the matter<br \/>\nof awarding of sentence. When there was a vague statement regarding age,<br \/>\nthe prosecution produced the school leaving certificate and the same was<br \/>\nplaced on record and the authenticity of the same has never been in doubt.<br \/>\nLearned counsel, however, further submitted that the accused can be<br \/>\nmedically examined at this stage. Under the above circumstances, we do not<br \/>\nthink that this exercise has to be undertaken by this Court at this stage<br \/>\nwhen the authenticity of the school leaving certificate has never been in<br \/>\ndoubt. The date of birth given in the said certificate is 1.5.67 and the<br \/>\npetitioner was aged more than 20 years on the date of commission of the<br \/>\noffence. Therefore the petitioner&#8217;s case does not come within the principle<br \/>\nlaid down in Harnam&#8217;s case which has been followed in Raisul&#8217;s case.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Having given our earnest consideration to the questions raised, we see<br \/>\nabsolutely no grounds to reduce the sentence to imprisonment for life on<br \/>\nthe grounds urged by the learned Counsel. Accordingly the Review Petitions<br \/>\nare dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 Author: K J Reddy Bench: M. M Punchhi, K. Jayachandra Reddy CASE NO.: Review Petition (civil) 999 of 1994 PETITIONER: Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/09\/1994 BENCH: M. M Punchhi &amp; K. Jayachandra Reddy JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-05T17:03:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-05T17:03:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2049,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\",\"name\":\"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-05T17:03:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-05T17:03:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994","datePublished":"1994-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-05T17:03:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994"},"wordCount":2049,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994","name":"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-05T17:03:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrutlal-someshwar-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-september-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1994"}]},{"@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\/234234","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=234234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}