{"id":255154,"date":"2010-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-02T19:37:23","modified_gmt":"2015-12-02T14:07:23","slug":"smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: D.D. Sinha, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                             1\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI\n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.582 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma              ]\n    Age - 28 years, Occ.Household,               ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    R\/o. Tamgaon, Taluka Karveer,                ]\n    Dist. Kolhapur. Presently lodged in          ]\n    District Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.          ]...Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                                                 [Orig. Accused No.3]\n          Vs.                    \n    State of Maharashtra                         ]\n                                \n    through P.I. Karveer                         ]\n    Police Stateion, Kolhapur,                   ]\n    Dist. Kolhapur in CR No.82\/2002              ]\n           \n\n\n    U\/S. 302, 201, 34 of I.P.C<\/a>..                 ]..Respondent.\n        \n\n\n\n                                        .........\n    Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate for the Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the Respondent - State.\n                                         .........\n\n                                       WITH\n                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.905 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n\n    State of Maharashtra.                        ]..Appellant.\n           Vs.\n    1.     Ravishankar Ramparvesh Thakur,        ]\n           Age 32 yrs.                           ]\n    2.     Ashokkumar Kusheshwar Thakur,         ]\n           Age 22 yrs.                           ]\n    3.     Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma,      ]\n           Age 28 yrs.                           ]\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:24:41 :::\n                                             2\n                                                            APEAL-582&905-03\n\n\n\n\n          All R\/o Tamgaon, Tal.Karveer,         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n          Dist.Kolhapur.                        ] ..Respondents.\n                                             [Orig.Accused Nos.1 to 3]\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                                           ....\n    Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the Appellant-State.\n    Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 3.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    Mr.P.V. Dhopatkar, Advocate(appointed) for respondent No.2-Absent.\n                                           ....\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                       CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                       DATE OF RESERVING ) : 27.8.2010
\n                       THE JUDGMENT      )<\/p>\n
                       DATE OF PRONOUNCING ) : 08.9.2010
\n                       THE JUDGMENT      )<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J.).\n<\/p>\n
    1.     By the present judgment both these appeals are being disposed of as they<\/p>\n
    are arising out of the same judgment and order dated 7th April, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     Sessions Case No.146\/2002 was heard and decided by the Adhoc<\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur vide judgment and order dated 7th April,<\/p>\n
    2003. By the said order and judgment, original accused Nos.1 & 2 were<\/p>\n
    acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
    Sections 302<\/a>, 201<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved<\/p>\n
    by such acquittal of accused Nos.1 & 2, present Criminal Appeal No.905\/2003<\/p>\n
    was preferred by the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                             APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    3.     By the same judgment and order dated 7th April, 2003, original accused<\/p>\n
    No.3, a woman by name Smt.Durgavati Sharma, was convicted of the offence<\/p>\n
    punishable under Section 302<\/a> of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer<\/p>\n
    rigorous imprisonment for life. However, she was acquitted for the offence<\/p>\n
    punishable under Section 201<\/a> of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by such<\/p>\n
    conviction, accused No.3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.582\/2003. As such, both<\/p>\n
    the present appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    4.<\/p>\n
           Prior to appreciating rival arguments advanced by the learned APP<\/p>\n
    Mrs.Pai for the State and learned Advocate Mr.Ingawale for original accused<\/p>\n
    Nos.1 & 3, certain factual position and the evidence as recorded by the Sessions<\/p>\n
    Court can be narrated as under. Again at this stage, it may be mentioned that<\/p>\n
    original accused No.2, who is respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.905\/2003,<\/p>\n
    is reportedly absconding however is represented by Advocate appointed under<\/p>\n
    Legal Aid Scheme of the State Government. However, today we have no<\/p>\n
    opportunity to hear him in the present appeals due to his absence.\n<\/p>\n
           On 30th March, 2002 dead body of one unknown person was found in the<\/p>\n
    stone quarry area within the precincts of Tamgaon village, near Gautam Society,<\/p>\n
    Taluka – Karveer, District – Kolhapur. Information was received by the concerned<\/p>\n
    police station Karveer, regarding accidental death. As such, A.D.R. was<\/p>\n
    registered and investigation was started. Inquest panchanama was drawn. Dead<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span>
\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    body, which was beheaded, was in mutilated condition and infact putrefaction<\/p>\n
    was at the advanced stage showing that the death must have occurred 3-4 days<\/p>\n
    prior to finding of the dead body. Noticing the mutilated condition of the dead<\/p>\n
    body, detailed postmortem was not conducted, however, viscera and parts of the<\/p>\n
    body were sent for scientific examination by orthopedician of Miraj Medical<\/p>\n
    College. Opinion was obtained from the medical expert that the death must have<\/p>\n
    occurred due to beheading and also due to injury by some weapon. In view of<\/p>\n
    these observations, API Sutar (PW-19) lodged FIR on behalf of the State being<\/p>\n
    C.R. No.82\/2002 for the offences punishable under Section 302<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
    Section 201<\/a> of Indian Penal Code. Said FIR was registered on the night of 3rd<\/p>\n
    April, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     During the investigation, role of three persons was ascertained i.e.<\/p>\n
    accused Nos.1 & 2 being Ravishankar Thakur and Ashok Kumar and accused<\/p>\n
    No.3 Smt.Durgavati Sharma. All the three accused were arrested in the evening<\/p>\n
    of 4th April, 2002. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Nos.2 & 3<\/p>\n
    had illicit relations and allegedly it was the motive in the killing of the husband<\/p>\n
    of accused No.3. Incidentally during investigation, the head of the dead body<\/p>\n
    was recovered allegedly at the instance of accused No.1 and it was identified by<\/p>\n
    various witnesses as that of one Rampravesh Sharma, husband of accused No.3.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     It is the case of the prosecution that deceased had knowledge regarding<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span>
\n                                                               APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    illicit relations between his wife and accused No.2 and as such he had<\/p>\n
    reprimanded accused No.2 on that count. Also, according to the prosecution all<\/p>\n
    the three accused infurtherance of their common intention decided to do away<\/p>\n
    with the deceased and as such on the night between 29th and 30th March, 2002<\/p>\n
    the deceased was assaulted by means of a kitchen-knife and after killing him his<\/p>\n
    head was severed from the body and was thrown in the stone-quarry filled with<\/p>\n
    water, away from the house of the deceased. Also according to the prosecution,<\/p>\n
    the beheaded dead body was taken from the house of the deceased and was<\/p>\n
    thrown in the area near the stone-quarry and attempt was made to burn the said<\/p>\n
    body by using petrol.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     During investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded. So<\/p>\n
    also, various panchanamas were drawn. During recording of the evidence, total<\/p>\n
    22 witnesses were examined. The case of the prosecution is based on<\/p>\n
    circumstantial evidence and the circumstances against the accused are narrated at<\/p>\n
    the appropriate place here under.\n<\/p>\n
    8.      Motive, according to the prosecution, is illicit relationship between<\/p>\n
    accused Nos.2 & 3, and also strained relations between the deceased and his wife<\/p>\n
    (accused No.3). At this juncture, it must be mentioned that so far as the alleged<\/p>\n
    illicit relations, there is no material whatsoever available on record. So far as the<\/p>\n
    strained relations of deceased and his wife (accused No.3), there is evidence of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span>
\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    two witnesses (1) PW-4 Rajani Patil and (2) PW-11 Shivaji Gondhalekar. Their<\/p>\n
    substantive evidence disclose that deceased used to consume liquor and used to<\/p>\n
    assault his wife on many occasions and due to which their relations were strained<\/p>\n
    and infact allegedly there was a reason for wife (accused No.3) to get rid of her<\/p>\n
    husband.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     Admittedly the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial<\/p>\n
    evidence, as such the circumstances alleged against all the three accused are<\/p>\n
    narrated and it is to be ascertained whether or not such circumstances clinchingly<\/p>\n
    incriminate the accused persons for the offence of murder. As against all the<\/p>\n
    three accused, there is a circumstance as to seizure of their clothes at the time of<\/p>\n
    their arrest. Four days after the incident of murder, all the three accused were<\/p>\n
    arrested on 4th April, 2002. The clothes on their person were seized under the<\/p>\n
    panchnama. PW-1 Panch Balasaheb is examined to prove said panchnama.\n<\/p>\n
    According to prosecution, clothes of all the accused persons were having some<\/p>\n
    blood stains. Subsequently, clothes were sent for chemical analysis along with<\/p>\n
    other articles. In C.A. report though it is mentioned as to finding of blood of<\/p>\n
    human origin on such clothes, the blood group could not be determined as the<\/p>\n
    results were inconclusive. As such, admitted position remains that this<\/p>\n
    circumstance of finding blood stains on the clothes of the accused cannot be<\/p>\n
    considered as a clinching evidence to rule out any other hypothesis consistent<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span>
\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    with innocence of the accused. During the arguments, learned A.P.P. for the State<\/p>\n
    had fairly conceded to this position.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      As against accused No.3 there is another circumstance brought to the<\/p>\n
    notice of this Court on behalf of the prosecution and this is regarding recovery of<\/p>\n
    blood stains from her house and recovery of one rope having blood stains. It is<\/p>\n
    not at all case of the prosecution that the death of the victim was caused by use<\/p>\n
    of any rope to strangulate. In view of this position, it is innocuous as to finding<\/p>\n
    of a rope with blood stains in the house of accused No.3. Recovery of blood<\/p>\n
    stains and rope with blood stains was substantiated by evidence of PW-3 Dipak<\/p>\n
    Nalawade (a panch witness). Said panchnama was drawn on 5th April, 2002. It<\/p>\n
    must be said that this circumstance also cannot lead this Court to hold that<\/p>\n
    accused No.3, and none else, had committed murder of the victim. At the cost of<\/p>\n
    repetition it must be mentioned that the result of the chemical analyzer as to<\/p>\n
    non-determination of the blood-group of the blood found in the house of accused<\/p>\n
    No.3 and the blood on the rope, is an aspect which is required to be accepted<\/p>\n
    against the case of the prosecution. Needless to mention that when the case is<\/p>\n
    based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of such a nature<\/p>\n
    and of such an evidential value so as to lead the Court to the only hypothesis as<\/p>\n
    to the guilt of the accused. In any event, the circumstances as available against<\/p>\n
    accused No.3 are not of such a nature to point out towards the guilt of accused<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span>
\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    No.3 for the offence of murder.\n<\/p>\n
    11.     It must be mentioned that vide impugned judgment and order only<\/p>\n
    accused No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302<\/a> of<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code and accused Nos.1 & 2 were acquitted for all the charges. As<\/p>\n
    such, there is no application of Section 34<\/a> of Indian Penal Code, the common<\/p>\n
    intention of the accused. Considering this position, it must be said that there was<\/p>\n
    more burden on the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused No.3 for the<\/p>\n
    offence punishable under Section 302<\/a> of Indian Penal Code simplicitor. While<\/p>\n
    appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of accused No.3 in the matter of<\/p>\n
    Criminal Appeal No.582\/2003, the admitted factual position is of much<\/p>\n
    significance. According to the case of the prosecution assault on the victim<\/p>\n
    occurred in his house, whereas his beheaded dead body was found much away<\/p>\n
    near the stone quarry. Considering this factual position, the evidence on record<\/p>\n
    do not show as to in what manner accused No.3 could arrange for taking the dead<\/p>\n
    body of her husband from the house to a distant place and that also to behead it<\/p>\n
    in order to conceal the identity and throw away head in the stagnant water of<\/p>\n
    stone quarry. For want of such evidence, it must be said that the Additional<\/p>\n
    Sessions Judge had fallen in an error while holding accused No.3 guilty of the<\/p>\n
    offence of murder. It is significant to note that by the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
    order, accused No.3 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 201<\/a><\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span>
\n                                                             APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    of Indian Penal Code<\/a>. Hence, in view of the above discussion we hold that the<\/p>\n
    circumstances as alleged against accused No.3 are not at all sufficient to bring<\/p>\n
    home guilt of accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 302<\/a> of<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.582 of 2003 shall succeed.\n<\/p>\n
    12.     So far as Criminal Appeal No.905\/2003 is concerned, it is filed by the<\/p>\n
    State against the acquittal of accused Nos.1 & 2. According to the prosecution, as<\/p>\n
    argued by learned A.P.P. Mrs.Pai for the State, there are six circumstances<\/p>\n
    against accused No.1 and there are three circumstances against accused No.2.\n<\/p>\n
    The circumstances alleged against the respective accused are narrated in nutshell<\/p>\n
    here under so also the reasoning for not accepting those circumstances as<\/p>\n
    clinching evidence is given against each circumstance. The six circumstances as<\/p>\n
    against accused No.1 are as under:\n<\/p>\n
    [i]   Evidence of PW-12 Mohammed Ali regarding purchase of knife :\n<\/p>\n
          So far as the first circumstance of purchase of knife is concerned,<\/p>\n
    according to PW-12 he had identified accused No.1 when brought to his shop by<\/p>\n
    the police subsequently after the incident of murder. According to said PW-12<\/p>\n
    (shopkeeper) though he admitted during the cross-examination as to selling<\/p>\n
    similar such articles to number of persons on usual working hours, still<\/p>\n
    according to him he could identify accused No.1 as the person who has<\/p>\n
    purchased the same knife which was shown to him by the police. It is significant<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span>
\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    to note that during the cross-examination it has come on record that the knives<\/p>\n
    similar to the Article 27<\/a>, are available in the market. Moreover the said knife did<\/p>\n
    not have any blood stains much less the blood stains of same group as that of the<\/p>\n
    deceased.\n<\/p>\n
    [ii]    Evidence of PW-14 Parshuram Kamble regarding purchase of petrol on<\/p>\n
    30th March, 2002 :\n<\/p>\n
            This circumstance is not of much significance in as much as there is<\/p>\n
    nothing on record that the dead body was burnt or at least the clothes of the dead<\/p>\n
    body were tried to be destroyed by burning. At this juncture, it must be<\/p>\n
    mentioned that the clothes of the deceased were recovered under Section 27<\/a> of<\/p>\n
    the Indian Evidence Act, allegedly on the statement of accused No.2, and PW-9<\/p>\n
    Sunder Kamble acted as a panch. Nowhere in the panchnama, it is mentioned<\/p>\n
    that the said clothes were burnt or half-burnt as such it is of no relevance for<\/p>\n
    implicating accused No.1 and for that matter accused No.2 with the offence of<\/p>\n
    murder.\n<\/p>\n
    [iii]   Evidence of PW-13 Mahesh Pimple as to accused No.1 taking his bicycle<\/p>\n
    for the entire night of 30th March, 2002 and returning it back on the next day :\n<\/p>\n
            This circumstance is innocuous in as much as the panchnama regarding<\/p>\n
    recovery of cycle is admitted by the accused and there is no evidence that said<\/p>\n
    bicycle was used in the offence for carrying the dead body or the head of the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span>
\n                                                              APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    deceased from the place of offence to the place where it was thrown.\n<\/p>\n
    [iv]   Recovery of blood stained clothes of accused No.1 and which is<\/p>\n
    established by evidence of PW-1 panch Balasaheb.\n<\/p>\n
           This circumstance is innocuous for the same reason as mentioned earlier<\/p>\n
    while discussing the seizure of clothes of accused No.3. At the cost of repetition,<\/p>\n
    it must be mentioned that the C.A. report do not show any blood grouping and<\/p>\n
    the recovery of the clothes is after four days of the incident of murder and<\/p>\n
    allegedly accused was wearing the same clothes on his person till seizure on 4th<\/p>\n
    April, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    [v]    Relation of accused No.1 with accused No.3 as brother and sister :\n<\/p>\n
           This circumstance in itself will not have any bearing on the present matter,<\/p>\n
    more so when it is held by us that accused No.3 has been wrongly convicted by<\/p>\n
    the Sessions Court. In other words, mere relation as brother and sister between<\/p>\n
    accused Nos.1 & 3 cannot lead this Court to hold accused No.1 guilty of the<\/p>\n
    offence of murder.\n<\/p>\n
    [vi]   Discovery of head without body, at the instance of accused No.1 as per<\/p>\n
    the panchnama dated 4th April, 2002 i.e. memorandum                     statement and<\/p>\n
    subsequent discovery under Section 27<\/a> of Evidence Act :\n<\/p>\n
           This last circumstance is the main circumstance according to the<\/p>\n
    prosecution against accused No.1 as to his statement for showing the place where<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                            12<\/span>
\n                                                             APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    the head of the deceased was thrown. On this recovery much is argued by the<\/p>\n
    learned APP and further submitted that the Sessions Court had not appreciated<\/p>\n
    the said evidence of discovery. After going through the reasoning given by the<\/p>\n
    learned Sessions Judge and considering the circumstances under which said head<\/p>\n
    of the deceased was recovered from the stagnant water accumulated in the stone<\/p>\n
    quarry, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the Sessions Court<\/p>\n
    in not accepting the said circumstance against accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    13.<\/p>\n
             During the arguments, learned APP for the State brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
    this Court mainly three circumstances as against accused No.2 as under.\n<\/p>\n
    [i]    Finding of blood stained clothes of accused No.2 on the day of his arrest<\/p>\n
    i.e. on 4.4.2002:\n<\/p>\n
           Again for the reasons mentioned hereinabove the said circumstance is<\/p>\n
    innocuous in view of finding in the CA report as blood grouping could not be<\/p>\n
    determined and improbability as to accused persons using the same clothes from<\/p>\n
    the date of the incident till their arrest i.e. since 29.3.2010 or 30.3.2010 till<\/p>\n
    4.4.2010.\n<\/p>\n
    [ii]   Discovery of the clothes of the deceased at his instance as per his<\/p>\n
    memorandum statement dated 6.4.2002.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-9 panch Sunder Kamble is examined by the prosecution on this<\/p>\n
    aspect. On this aspect, reasoning given by      the learned Sessions Judge not<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              13<\/span>
\n                                                               APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    accepting this circumstance as incriminating against accused No.2 is acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
    More so when the recovery is from the open public place accessible to the public<\/p>\n
    at large. Otherwise also even acceptance of such discovery at the instance of<\/p>\n
    accused No.2 will not be a clinching evidence so far as offence under Section<\/p>\n
    302<\/a> of Indian Penal Code is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    [iii]   Conversation heard by PW-17 STD booth operator :\n<\/p>\n
            According to this witness, he had overheard the conversation between the<\/p>\n
    deceased when the deceased was talking to the brother of accused No.2. Few<\/p>\n
    days prior to the incident of murder, there was a telephone call at the STD booth<\/p>\n
    of PW-17 received from the brother of accused No.2. During such conversation,<\/p>\n
    PW-17 overheard the deceased reprimanding the brother of accused No.2 and<\/p>\n
    asking said brother to instruct accused No.2 to stop illicit relations accused No.2<\/p>\n
    had with accused No.3 (the wife of the deceased). Apart from the evidence of<\/p>\n
    PW-17, there is no evidence in order to substantiate the said talk. At the cost of<\/p>\n
    repetition, it must be said that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the<\/p>\n
    alleged illicit relations between accused No.2 & accused No.3 and hence this<\/p>\n
    circumstance of alleged talk is of no help to further the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    14.       In the final analysis, we hold that there is nothing to entertain the<\/p>\n
    Criminal Appeal No.905 of 2003 preferred by the State against acquittal of<\/p>\n
    accused Nos.1 & 2. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with following<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                14<\/span>
\n                                                                  APEAL-582&905-03<\/p>\n
    order :-\n<\/p>\n
                                        :: O R D E R::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [i]    Criminal Appeal No.582 of 2003 is allowed. The impugned<\/p>\n
               judgment and order dated 7.4.2003 passed by the learned Adhoc<\/p>\n
               Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.146\/2002 is<\/p>\n
               quashed and set-aside. The appellant (original accused No.3)<\/p>\n
               Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma shall be released from the jail<\/p>\n
               custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if<\/p>\n
               already paid, shall be refunded back to her.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [ii]   Criminal Appeal No.905 of 2003 stands dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         (D.D.SINHA,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                         (A.R.JOSHI,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:24:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 Bench: D.D. Sinha, A. R. Joshi 1 APEAL-582&905-03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.582 OF 2003 Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma ] Age – 28 years, Occ.Household, ] R\/o. Tamgaon, Taluka Karveer, ] Dist. Kolhapur. Presently […]<\/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-255154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-02T14:07:23+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\\\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T14:07:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2974,\"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\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\\\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T14:07:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\\\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-02T14:07:23+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T14:07:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010"},"wordCount":2974,"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\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010","name":"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T14:07:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-durgavati-ramparvesh-sharma-vs-us-302-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma vs U\/S. 302 on 8 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255154","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=255154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}