{"id":251480,"date":"2004-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004"},"modified":"2017-11-22T01:25:05","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T19:55:05","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: P V Reddi<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  648 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSANJAY S\/O DIGAMBARRAO RAJHANS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nP. VENKATARAMA REDDI & P.P. NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.\n<\/p>\n
This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra
\nagainst the verdict of acquittal recorded by the Aurangabad
\nBench of the Bombay High Court. The respondent was
\nconvicted under Section 302<\/a> IPC and sentenced to life
\nimprisonment by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
\nAurangabad on the charge of committing the murder of
\nVeena with whom the accused had a marriage engagement.
\nThe marriage was scheduled to take place on 2nd December,
\n1991. The tragic incident occurred in the night of 28th
\nSeptember, 1991 at about 7.30 p.m. The victim Veena died
\nin the hospital on the next day i.e. 29th September at about
\n8 p.m. on account of the burn injuries she received on the
\nprevious day. The accused also had some burn injuries on
\nhis hands in the process of extinguishing the flames on the
\ndeceased. The conviction was based on certain dying
\ndeclarations and the circumstantial evidence brought out by
\nthe examination of PW4 who was a vendor having a tea-stall
\nnear the spot of burning. The High Court, on an elaborate
\nconsideration, felt it unsafe to rely on the dying declarations
\nor to accept the evidence of PW4 and therefore set aside the
\nconviction. We are informed that the respondent had
\nundergone about five years of sentence during and after the
\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n
We shall advert to the facts alleged by the prosecution
\nand the sequence of events that had happened on the two
\ncrucial days i.e. 28th & 29th September, 1991 as emerging
\nfrom the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
The deceased Veena was a cricket player and the
\naccused was the captain of the cricket team when she was
\nstudying in the college. Later, he became a cricket coach.
\nThey fell in love with each other and the elders arranged a
\nbetrothal function on 18th August, 1991 at which it was
\ndecided to celebrate the marriage on 2nd December, 1991.
\nThe accuseda graduate, was employed in Census office
\nand the deceased was studying in Law College. The accused
\nand the deceased were closely moving about. Some strained
\nrelations developed between them and the accused had
\nsome reservations to marry her. On the crucial day of
\noccurrence i.e. 28th September, 1991, Veena had gone to
\nsee the accused after informing her mother. At about 7.30
\np.m. the accused and Veena were on the way to Veena’s
\nhouse and while they were in the locality behind Lokmath
\nbuilding, Aurangabad, the accused slowed down the scooter
\nand by taking out the petrol can kept in the scooter,
\nsprinkled the petrol on the person of Veena and set her on
\nfire, all of a sudden. All this was done on the moving
\nscooter. On noticing the flames on the body of Veena and
\nhearing her cries, some people gathered and tried to put out
\nthe fire. PW4 was one amongst them. He overheard Veena
\nremarking “Pramod, why you have burnt me?” (Sanjay
\nPramod is the name of the accused). The accused also had
\nsome burn injuries when he tried to extinguish the fire. The
\naccused then took her in an auto-rickshaw to the
\nGovernment Medical College Hospital. Soon after the
\nadmission at 8 p.m, PW8the Casualty duty Doctor,
\nenquired from the victim Veena as to how she got burnt. On
\ngetting the answer from her, PW8 recorded a medico legal
\ncase and noted what she said in the registerthe extract of
\nwhich is Ext.39. He also noted that the patient was brought
\nby the accused Sanjay. She told the Doctor that her
\n‘husband’, while going on a scooter on the road near
\nLokmath building, poured petrol and set her on fire and the
\npetrol can was in her hand. He noted the percentage of the
\nburns on various parts of the body, the total percentage
\nbeing 98. At the same time, a Police Constable on duty
\n(PW1) at the police post of the hospital, made an entry in
\nthe relevant register of the substance of what he heard from
\nthe victim while narrating the history to the Doctor. That is
\nmarked as Ext.P13. He then informed the CIDCO police
\nstation as the offence took place within the jurisdiction of
\nthat police station. PW15, the Head-Constable noted the
\nmessage, made an entry in station diary and informed PW6,
\nthe Sub-Inspector of Police when he came there at 8.40
\np.m. PW6 reached the hospital at 10.15 p.m. PW6 then
\naddressed a letterExt.29 to the in-charge Doctor to apprise
\nhim whether the patient was in a condition to give the
\nstatement. The Doctor stated that she was not in a position
\nto give the statement. Then he returned to the police station
\nand registered the crime under Section 307<\/a> IPC. The FIR
\nExt.30 was drawn up on the basis of the same and sent to
\nthe concerned Magistrate. While so PWs 2 & 3the father
\nand mother of the deceased, having got the news, went to
\nthe hospital and by 9.45 p.m. they saw Veena in the ward.
\nVeena allegedly told them that the accused was responsible
\nfor setting her on fire. PW13another Sub-Inspector
\nattached to CIDCO police station took over investigation
\nfrom PW6 at about 11 p.m. He went to the Executive
\nMagistrate\/Naib TehsildarPW7 and requested him to record
\nthe statement of the victim Veena. Initially, at about 11.10
\np.m, it was not possible to record the statement as the
\nDoctor stated that the patient was conscious but disoriented.
\nHowever, at 3.15 a.m, the Doctor endorsed on Ext.35
\nletter, that the patient was conscious and oriented and in a
\ncondition to give the statement. Then the statement was
\nrecorded by PW7 as per Ext.37 which is relied upon as the
\n2nd dying declaration. In her statement, the victim stated
\nthat the accused quarrelled and poured the petrol taken out
\nfrom the can and set her on fire after slowing down the
\nscooter on the road behind Lokmat office and some people
\ngathered and extinguished the fire and that she became
\nunconscious thereafter. She also stated that the accused
\nbrought her to the hospital. We have another statement,
\nrecorded at 4.30 a.m. by the Investigating OfficerPW13,
\nwhich is sought to be treated as a dying declaration. This
\nstatement was recorded without consulting the Medical
\nOfficer. The spot was inspected by PW13 on being shown by
\nthe father of Veena in the morning of next day. He had
\nseized the articles found at the spot of incident including an
\nidentity card and purse. The scooter of the accused was
\nfound lying nearby. PW13 recorded the statement of PW4
\nand others. He arrested the accused at 7.20 p.m. on
\n29.9.1991. The victim Veena died at the hospital at 8.10
\np.m. The two Doctors who attended on the deceased at the
\nhospital were PWs 10 & 11. After holding the inquest, PW13
\nsent the dead body for postmortem. The postmortem
\nexamination was done by PW12. The cause of death was
\nnoted as shock and peripheral circulatory failure due to 95%
\nburns. The investigation was entrusted to PW15 on 23rd
\nOctober, 1991. He re-examined PW4 and also recorded
\nstatements of others and then filed the charge-sheet in the
\nCourt of C.J.M., Aurangabad on 1.7.1992.\n<\/p>\n
The accused, whose hands and palms were burnt to
\nthe extent of 3%, was admitted in the hospital and he was
\ndischarged on the next day at 2.30 p.m. As already stated,
\nhe was arrested later on i.e. at 7.00 p.m. The accused
\nexamined himself as a witness. As DW1he stated that the
\ndeceased was ill-tempered and impatient person, that she
\nwas insisting on performing a registered marriage instead of
\nwaiting for the ceremonial marriage, that on the crucial day,
\nhe took her to the Muqbara to change her mood and
\nthereafter he came back to his house. He further stated that
\nin the evening he went to the house of Veena and on coming
\nto know that she did not return to the house, he took
\nVeena’s brother with him to search for her. However she
\nwas found at his house and both of them left by the scooter
\nto the house of Veena. On the way at about 7.15 p.m. he
\nfelt that something was burning at the back side and when
\nhe was trying to stop his scooter, Veena jumped from the
\nscooter. Then he noticed the fire on her and tried to
\nextinguish it. At the hospital, while he remained by the side
\nof Veena, he sent the message to his parents and after his
\nfather and others came, they were requested to inform the
\nparents of Veena. Her parents came to the hospital at about
\n10.15 p.m. DW1 also produced certain letters written by
\nVeena in order to throw light on her suicidal disposition.
\nExcepting the alleged statements of the deceased and
\nthe statement of the accused in the Court, there is no direct
\nevidence relating to the occurrence, though it happened on a
\npublic road in a busy locality. No motive had been
\nestablished. The circumstances emerging from record would
\nreveal that the incident must have been a sudden affair. It
\nlooks mysterious as well. In the alleged dying declaration
\ngiven to the Executive Magistrate, she stated that the
\naccused quarrelled with her for no reason. That means, it
\nwas a sort of petty quarrel, if we go by that dying
\ndeclaration. However, in Ext.39 which is said to be her
\nearliest revelation, it is mentioned that the accused was
\ndoubting her character which goes contrary to the version
\nrecorded by the Executive Magistrate. The conduct of the
\naccused soon after and subsequent to the incident does not
\nin any way point to his guilt. At this stage, it should also be
\nnoted that the accused, who remained in the hospital for
\nabout 11 hours after the dying declaration was recorded by
\nthe Executive Magistrate, was not interrogated or arrested,
\nthough by that time the incriminating evidence was said to
\nbe available with the police. He was allowed to be
\ndischarged at 2.30 p.m. and was arrested only at 7.00 p.m.
\nThese factors ought to be kept in view in testing the
\nprosecution case. We must also have regard to the fact that
\nthis is an appeal against acquittal and this Court ought not
\nto interfere unless the Court is convinced that the decision of
\nthe High Court is vitiated by perversity, wrong legal
\napproach or non consideration of material evidence. If two
\nviews are reasonably possible, this Court cannot but uphold
\nthe verdict of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
Amongst the items of incriminating evidence in the
\nform of dying declarations, we would first like to advert to
\nthe last one in point of time which was recorded by the
\nInvestigating OfficerPW13 at 4.30 a.m. on 29th September,
\n1991. Leaving apart the question whether it can be
\nconsidered as a dying declaration or a statement recorded
\nunder Section 161<\/a> Cr.P.C., we have no element of doubt
\nthat Ext.86 is a manipulated document introduced by a
\noverzealous Investigating Officer to buttress the prosecution
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
The English version of Ext.86 runs into two full typed
\npages or more. The detailsnecessary and unnecessary,
\nminute and material are found therein. The declarant starts
\nwith family particulars and goes on to say about her
\neducation, her contacts with the accused, the hour to hour
\ndetails of her movements from the time she left home at
\n9.00 a.m., the colour and style of the dress she was
\nwearing, the places at which she spent with the accused and
\nthe conversation they had, the scooter number, the name of
\nthe petrol pump where she purchased petrol and so on. This
\nwas all prefatory to the actual incident which she narrated in
\nthe later part of the statement. It would be impossible to
\nbelieve that a person suffering from 95% burns would
\nnarrate the details in such vivid manner and coherent way. A
\nperusal of Ext.86 further reveals that the relevant facts to
\nbuild up the prosecution case including the possible motive,
\nthe ready availability of petrol in a can are all incorporated in
\nthat statement. The accused was alleged to have said that
\nhe was not interested in marrying her in the course of
\nconversation at Muqbara which led to a minor quarrel.
\nAccording to the statementExt.86, the accused gave Rs.50
\nto purchase petrol which he wanted her to keep ready so
\nthat they may proceed to Daulatabad Fort straight after
\nreturning from the office. She went on to say that the
\naccused did not return for quite some time and she roamed
\nhere and there and went to his house and found the accused
\nin the house at 7.00 p.m. Then, the accused volunteered to
\ndrop her back at home on the scooter. She added that he
\ntook the purse and petrol can in the first instance but later
\nreturned the purse and deposited the petrol can in the
\nscooter dicky. The actual incident was then narrated.
\nAccording to that narration, while going on the scooter at
\n7.30 p.m. to her house, they had a ‘verbal quarrel again’
\nand the accused slowed down the scooter near Lokmat office
\nbuilding, took out petrol can from the front side dicky of the
\nscooter by his right hand, opened the cork and poured petrol
\non her, while uttering the words that he will not marry her
\nand ignited the match. At that time, she was busy talking
\nwith him. Immediately, she was engulfed by fire and as the
\nscooter was proceeding in slow speed, she jumped down.
\nWhen she started shouting, four or five persons came and
\nextinguished the fire. Thereafter, the accused brought an
\nauto-rickshaw and took her in that vehicle to the hospital
\nand admitted her. The statement goes to the extent of
\ngiving an explanation as to why the accused was keeping a
\nmatch box with him. The intrinsic worth and reliability of this
\nso called dying declaration can be judged from its tenor and
\ncontents themselves. That apart, the I.O. did not come
\nforward with any explanation as to why he thought of
\nrecording the statement soon after the Executive Magistrate
\npurportedly recorded the statement, that too without taking
\nthe opinion of the Doctor as to her fitness. We have no
\nhesitation in discarding the alleged statement recorded by
\nPW13 under Ext.86. The anxiety to plant the evidence is
\ndiscernible from this document.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to Ext.37 which is the dying declaration
\nrecorded by PW7 by name Ghulam GouseNaib Tehsildar-
\ncum-Executive Magistrate at 3.15 a.m., we share, to some
\nextent, the doubts that have been expressed by the High
\nCourt. In this statement, the deceased stated that the
\naccused was her fiance, when she went to see him on the
\nmorning of 28th September, he told her that “we shall go to
\nDaulatabad for roaming, you take the petrol”, in the
\nafternoon, she purchased one liter petrol in a can from
\nKranthi Chowk Petrol Pump and kept the same in his house;
\nas he did not turn up, she went to his house at about
\n6.00 p.m. and that he quarrelled with her and poured the
\npetrol taking it out from the can and set her on fire and at
\nthat time she was wearing Terricot Punjabi dress. This gives
\nan impression that the incident took place at the house of
\nthe accused. However, in the following sentence, she stated
\nthat when they reached the road behind Lokmat office, the
\naccused slowed down the scooter and poured petrol on her
\nperson from the can kept on the front side and set her on
\nfire by lighting the matchstick. As she shouted, some people
\ngathered and extinguished fire. Then she fainted and was
\nunable to see anything. This is what she stated in answer to
\nthe question “when and how the incident took place”. In
\nanswer to the next question, she stated that the accused
\nbrought her to the hospital in an auto. In answer to question
\nNo.4, she stated that the accused quarrelled with her”a
\nquarrel without any reason”. Then a question was put by
\nPW7 “whether you have any doubt on anybody” for which
\nshe replied “I have doubt on SanjayPramod” (the
\naccused). In reply to the last question, she stated that her
\nmarriage was scheduled to take place on 2.12.1991. The
\nduration of the recording of the statement was shown as
\n45 minutes from 3.15 to 4.00 a.m. It was endorsed on
\nExt.37 that none else was present and after reading over the
\nstatement, thumb impression was put by Veena. PW7
\nclarified that the statement was given by her in Marathi
\nlanguage with English words here and there. The High Court
\ncommented that the language found in Ext.37 could not
\nhave been that of an educated person well versed in Marathi
\nlanguage hailing from a traditional Marathi family. One of us
\n(Naolekar, J.) who is familiar with Marathi language has also
\nformed that impression on going through the original of
\nExt.37. The comment of the High Court that “the lady might
\nhave narrated something which the Executive Magistrate
\nappeared to have recorded in his own language” and that
\nthe Magistrate later on reproduced his recollection of the
\nnarration, cannot be brushed aside. The High Court also
\ncommented on the fact that PW7 would not have got her
\nthumb impression because her thumbs were burnt and that
\nthe thumb impression alleged to have been affixed to the
\nstatement may not be her thumb impression but in all
\nprobability it is the impression of the toe of the leg on which
\nthe marks of stamp ink were found at the time of inquest.
\nTherefore the endorsement “thumb impression of Veena”
\nbelow the mark may not be correct. The further comment of
\nthe High Court is in regard to the question posed by PW7 at
\nthe end enquiring whether she was suspecting anybody. If
\nthe version implicating the accused in clear terms has
\nalready been given in the earlier part of her statement, this
\nquestion and answer thereto becomes meaningless. The
\nfurther question whether she was married was also
\nmeaningless. The High Court was therefore of the view that
\nthe principle that the dying declaration should be free from
\nslightest doubt is not satisfied and that Ext.37 did not inspire
\nconfidence in order to base the conviction on such
\ndocument. Though the High Court further commented on
\ncertain erasures\/corrections, we are not inclined to attach
\nmuch importance to them.\n<\/p>\n
The overall picture we get is that the Executive
\nMagistratePW7 did contact the victim and record her
\nstatement while she was conscious and oriented as certified
\nby the Doctor at least for sometime if not 45 minutes. The
\nstatement read as a whole does not lead to the inference
\nthat the Executive Magistrate did not at all record the
\nstatement. In fact, no such suggestion was put to PW7
\nthough many other suggestions were made. Though the
\nlearned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention
\nto the deposition of PW2 that he denied the knowledge of
\nany police officer or Executive Magistrate seeing his
\ndaughter throughout the period he was in the hospital, that
\nstatement does not militate against the weight of evidence
\navailable to establish his presence at the hospital.
\nWe have however a strong doubt whether for 45
\nminutes, the patient in that serious condition could go on
\nresponding to the questions of PW7 to the extent of even
\ngiving details regarding the clothes worn by her and the
\nplace from which she purchased the petrol which are really
\ninconsequential details. Again, taking an overall perspective
\nof the evidence, there is every reason to think that PW7
\ncould have scribbled the gist of what Veena was speaking
\nout and then prepared the statement in question and answer
\nforms subsequently employing his own language. Thus,
\nExt.37 does not appear to be an accurate or unalloyed
\nversion of the deceased. The possibility of certain
\nembellishments cannot be ruled out. Though, we do not
\ndiscard Ext.37 as a fabricated and distorted document, it
\ndoes not pass the test of total reliability. Even then, we shall
\nproceed on the premise that the material part of the
\nstatement of Veena in regard to the actual incident that had
\nhappened after reaching the road near Lokmat building is
\ncorrect. As already noted, the accused stood implicated by
\nthat statement. What follows next is the question. For
\nfinding an answer to this question, we must have regard to
\nthe other dying declaration (Ext.39)first in point of time,
\nin order to see whether these declarations are consistent
\nwith each other in material particulars.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.39 is an entry in the hospital register made by Dr.
\nManohar (PW8) at the time of admitting Veena into the
\nhospital. PW8 stated that on enquiring as to how she got
\nburnt, she gave the reply which was reduced to writing in
\nthe register. The contents of Ext.39 are as follows:
\n“Since husband was doubting me, today in the
\nevening while we were going on scooter from
\nroad behind Lokmat building, he poured petrol on
\nmy body and set me on fire with matchstick.\n<\/p>\n
Petrol was there in the can in my hand.”\n<\/p>\n
At the top, husband’s name (i.e. name of the accused)
\nis written. Whether she pointed out to Sanjay as her
\nhusband or whether the doctor on his own guessed that the
\nperson accompanying her was husband, is a matter of
\ndoubt. However, not much turns on that.\n<\/p>\n
When the doctorPW8 was eliciting information from
\nthe patient, PW1the Constable on duty at the hospital was
\npresent. Having heard the narration of Veena, he made a
\nnote in the MLC register as per Ext.13, which is almost the
\nsame as Ext.39. PW1 then communicated the information to
\nthe jurisdictional police station at 8.20 p.m. The message
\nwas recorded by PW6S.I. of police.\n<\/p>\n
It is now necessary to notice the contradictions
\nbetween the two statements of the deceased incorporated in
\nExbs.37 & 39. They arefirstly with regard to the motive
\nand secondly regarding the location of the petrol can on the
\nscooter.\n<\/p>\n
According to Ext.39, the victim was holding the petrol
\ncan in her hand whereas according to Ext.37, petrol can was
\nin the dicky towards the front of the scooter. If what was
\nstated in Ext.39the 1st statement is correct, is it then
\npossible to believe that the accused took over the petrol can
\nfrom her while the scooter was in motion, removed its lid,
\nsprinkled the petrol on her and ignited the fire with the
\nmatchstick? Such type of operation, even if possible, would
\nhave immediately attracted the attention of the deceased
\nand she would have suspected foul-play. She would not
\nhave kept quiet and remained on the scooter especially
\nwhen it slowed down. In fact, she stated in Ext.37 that after
\nshe was set on fire she jumped out of the scooter as the
\nscooter was in slow motion. No sensible person placed in
\nsuch situation would helplessly watch and allow the scooter
\ndriver to accomplish his design, that too on a busy road.
\nHowever, if the petrol can was in the dicky as stated in
\nExt.37, the possibility of opening the petrol can without
\nattracting her attention and suddenly sprinkling it on her
\nclothes will be greater though even that is not an easy
\noperation. Once the theory of holding the petrol can with her
\nhand is accepted and the further fact that the incident
\nhappened when the scooter was in motion is also accepted,
\nthe whole prosecution story would be relegated to the verge
\nof incredibility. It will be highly impracticable if not
\nimpossible to set her on fire in that manner.  We cannot
\nignore the version in Ext. 39 about holding the petrol can on
\nhand while testing the reliability of dying declarations.
\nTrue, the story of suicide set up by the accused as
\nDW1 also appears to be incredible. If she had opened the
\npetrol can and started sprinkling petrol on herself, it would
\nhave immediately attracted the attention of the accused and
\nhe would have stopped the scooter and thwarted her
\nattempt.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the version of homicide set up by the prosecution
\nas well as the version of suicide set up by the accused
\nappear to be highly improbable and do not inspire
\nconfidence in the mind of the Court to believe either version.
\nIn this state of things, when two incredible versions confront
\nthe Court, the Court has to give benefit of doubt to the
\naccused and it is not safe to sustain the conviction. The
\ncontradictions in the two dying declarations coupled with the
\nhigh degree of improbability of the manner of occurrence as
\ndepicted by the prosecution case leaves the Court with no
\noption but to attach little weight to these dying declarations.
\nIt is not the plurality of the dying declarations that adds
\nweight to the prosecution case, but their qualitative worth is
\nwhat matters. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the
\ndying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full
\nconfidence of the Court in its truthfulness and correctness
\n(vide the observations of Five Judge Bench in Laxman Vs.
\nState of Maharashtra [(2002) 6 SCC 710]. Inasmuch as
\nthe correctness of dying declaration cannot be tested by
\ncross-examination of its maker, “great caution must be
\nexercised in considering the weight to be given to this
\nspecies of evidence”. When there is more than one dying
\ndeclaration genuinely recorded, they must be tested on the
\ntouchstone of consistency and probabilities. They must also
\nbe tested in the light of other evidence on record. Adopting
\nsuch approach, we are unable to place implicit reliance on
\nthe dying declarations, especially when the High Court felt it
\nunsafe to act on them. This is apart from the question
\nwhether the deceased who became unconscious at the spot
\n(as recorded in Ext.37) with 95% burns and who was found
\nto be in disoriented condition two hours later, was in a fit
\ncondition to talk to the doctor at the time of her admission
\nto the hospital. We refrain from going into this aspect.
\nWe shall now turn our attention to the evidence of non-
\nofficial witnesses who, by quoting the words said to have
\nbeen uttered by the deceased, implicate the accused as the
\nculprit. PW2the father of the deceased states that Veena
\ntold him and his wife as soon as they called on her at the
\nhospital ward that the accused poured petrol on her person
\nand set the fire while going on the road behind Lokmat
\nbuilding. She even asked him to take revenge against the
\naccused. At that time, according to PW2, she was conscious.
\nWe find it difficult to believe this statement which has been
\nrejected by the High Court too. It is in the evidence of PW2
\nthat they were by the bed-side of their daughter at 9.30 or
\n9.45 p.m. The evidence of the first I.O.PW6 is to the effect
\nthat he went to the hospital and contacted the doctor at the
\nhospital at 10.15 p.m. and the doctor gave it in writing that
\nthe patient was not in a position to give the statement.
\nAbout an hour later, PW13the next I.O. made an attempt
\nto have the statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate
\nbut he could not succeed for the reason that the duty doctor
\nopined that the patient though conscious was disoriented
\nand not in a fit condition to give the statement vide Ext.35.
\nThat being the situation, it is highly doubtful whether the
\nvictim was in a position to speak to her parents at about
\n9.45 p.m. as alleged by PW2. Another fact that makes PW2’s
\nversion incredible is that admittedly he did not take any
\naction by reporting to the police after he heard those alleged
\nwords from Veena. PW2 did not also make any enquiries
\nwith the accused, who according to him, was present at that
\ntime. That is not the natural course of conduct. We are,
\ntherefore, not inclined to attach any weight to the deposition
\nof PW2 narrating the alleged statement made by the victim
\nregarding the cause of her burns. For the same reasons, the
\nevidence of PW3the mother of the deceased, cannot be
\nrelied upon.\n<\/p>\n
We now come to the evidence of PW4 who was running
\na wayside ‘hotel’ outside the college gate. The High Court
\nunhesitatingly rejected his evidence. One of the reasons
\ngiven by the High Court, namely, misreading of his evidence
\nby the trial Court in quoting the words of Veena does not
\nappear to be correct. It is in fact agreed by the learned
\ncounsel for the accused that the trial Court’s translation of
\nthe crucial sentence in the deposition of PW4 is correct. It
\nwas rechecked by one of us. Even then, we are unable to
\nplace much reliance on the version given by this witness.
\nPW4 stated that he was cleaning the utensils at about 7.15
\np.m. when he saw a burning person running towards him
\nshouting “Pramod, why you burnt mesave, save”. Then he
\nstated that by the time he went to the spot where the girl
\nwas burning, 5-6 persons gathered and they were already
\nextinguishing the fire. He then took out a bed-sheet and
\nplaced it on her. When the bed-sheet was burnt, he used a
\ngunny bag to control the fire. He then stated that after the
\nfire was put out, one person who was there by her side, got
\nan auto-rickshaw and took her away. He further deposed
\nthat the scooter was lying on the road nearby. Whether PW4
\nreally heard the lady in flames saying “Pramod, why you
\nburnt me” is the question. The distance between his work-
\nplace and the spot where fire was extinguished is not given
\nin the spot map i.e., Ext.10 prepared by the I.O.PW13.
\nPW4 also did not mention the distance. It is doubtful
\nwhether he would have distinctly heard the name ‘Pramod’
\n(which is the second name of the accused) from the place
\nwhere he was washing the utensils. By the time he went
\nthere already some people surrounded her in a bid to
\nextinguish the fire. Amidst the noise and chaos that would
\nhave prevailed there, it is highly doubtful that PW4 could at
\nall hear any such words from the mouth of the victim who
\nwould have been in a state of panic and unbearable pain.
\nAnother aspect which deserves notice in this context is that
\nif the victim lady was crying aloud naming the accused as
\nthe culprit, the people who gathered there and extinguished
\nthe fire would not have simply allowed him to carry her to
\nthe hospital without any demur. The natural conduct would
\nbe at least to note the auto-rickshaw number and report the
\nmatter to the police but no such facts were spoken to by
\nPW4. We are therefore of the view that the credibility of his
\nversion regarding the words alleged to have been uttered by
\nthe victim is open to doubt as it goes against probabilities
\nand the natural course of conduct. At any rate, the
\ndeposition of PW4 cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
\nWe find no good reasons to differ with the conclusion
\nreached by the High Court, though we do not endorse the
\nreasoning of the High Court in totality.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we affirm the judgment of the High Court
\nand dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 Author: P V Reddi Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 648 of 1998 PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT: SANJAY S\/O DIGAMBARRAO RAJHANS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/2004 BENCH: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI & P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/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-251480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-21T19:55:05+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\\\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T19:55:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5257,\"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\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\\\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T19:55:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\\\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-21T19:55:05+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T19:55:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004"},"wordCount":5257,"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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T19:55:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-sanjay-so-digambarrao-rajhans-on-25-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S\/O Digambarrao Rajhans on 25 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/251480","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=251480"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251480\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}