{"id":261481,"date":"2009-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-30T16:38:00","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T11:08:00","slug":"yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2004\n\n    Shivanna Bhimsen Lokhande\n    Convict No.C-13291\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Yeravada Central Prison\n    411 006.                                                    ..Appellant.\n\n             Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    The State of Maharashtra                                    ..Respondent.\n                              ig      ....\n    Ms. Revati Mohite-Dere (amicus curiae ) for the Appellant.\n    Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State.\n                            \n                                      ....\n\n                        CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &\n                                       DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                             April 16,  2009.\n<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT (PER DR.  D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
\n                                        , J.)
\n                                            :\n<\/p>\n
    1.        The Appellant stands convicted for the murder of his wife<\/p>\n
    Sakhubai.  Sakhubai and the Appellant were labourers. Their worldly<\/p>\n
    belongings were housed in a shed made from tin sheets. The shed<\/p>\n
    was home.   Typical of life in urban India, their tin shed lay in close<\/p>\n
    proximity to a building by the name of Amit Apartments at Kondhwa, a<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Suburb   of   Pune.     The   couple   had   a   child   who   was   barely   three.\n<\/p>\n
    Sakhubai had worked as a maid with Pramila and Charles  Pillai   for<\/p>\n
    seven or eight months.  The prosecution alleges that on 3rd May, 2002<\/p>\n
    Sakhubai had reported for work with the Pillais  and was present until<\/p>\n
    nine in the night.  She was addicted to alcohol.  That evening  was no<\/p>\n
    exception.     The   Appellant   was   summoned   by   the   Pillais   to   their<\/p>\n
    residence and was asked to take away his wife.   The next morning<\/p>\n
    between seven thirty  and eight, the Appellant came to the Pillai home<\/p>\n
    in Amit Apartments for a morning snack. Upon being asked about the<\/p>\n
    whereabouts of his wife he stated that she had left to meet her  sister<\/p>\n
    that   morning.     The   Appellant   is   alleged   to   have   left   the   temporary<\/p>\n
    shed in which he lived with his family and to have shifted to another<\/p>\n
    construction site at Nanapeth in Pune.  Netaji Shinde was on duty as<\/p>\n
    a   Senior   Police   Inspector   at   the   Sahakarnagar   Police   Station.     At<\/p>\n
    eight thirty in the morning, he received a wireless  message of a dead<\/p>\n
    body   being   found   near   the   Suryamukhi   Ganesh   Temple.     Upon<\/p>\n
    reaching the spot he found the dead body of a woman lying on an<\/p>\n
    open ground in a pool of blood.  Her face was crushed.  A large stone<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    was found lying by the side of the body.  P.I. Shinde who deposed at<\/p>\n
    the trial lodged a complaint, at Exh. 33.  A crime, C.R. 87\/2002 was<\/p>\n
    registered.     P.I.   Shinde   prepared   a   Panchanama   of   the   scene   of<\/p>\n
    offence in the presence of two panch witnesses (Exh. 18).   The dead<\/p>\n
    body was transmitted   for postmortem analysis.  The investigation led<\/p>\n
    to  Charles and Pramila Pillai who resided in Amit Apartments  and at<\/p>\n
    whose house  Sakhubai had been employed.  Pramila Pillai informed<\/p>\n
    the police that a woman of a similar description had resided in a hut in<\/p>\n
    front of  the apartment  complex, but had not reported  for work with<\/p>\n
    them for the previous four or five days.  Mr. and Mrs. Pillai were taken<\/p>\n
    to the Sassoon Hospital where the body was stored in the  morgue.\n<\/p>\n
    The morgue has been euphemistically   referred to at the trial as a<\/p>\n
    dead   house.     The   Pillais   identified   the   body.     They   informed   the<\/p>\n
    Investigating Officer that the brother and sister of Sakhubai resided at<\/p>\n
    village Dhanori.  The trail  led to the brother and sister who in turn are<\/p>\n
    alleged to have identified the body of the deceased.   The Appellant<\/p>\n
    was   arrested   on   10th  May,   2002.     It   has   been   alleged   that   in<\/p>\n
    pursuance of a statement made by the Appellant in the presence of<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
    panch witnesses the Appellant led the police to the tin shed in front of<\/p>\n
    Amit  Apartments   where  a  bloodstained  shirt and  pant  belonging  to<\/p>\n
    him came to be recovered from a gap in the tin sheets.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         The Appellant was charged under Section 302<\/a> of the Penal<\/p>\n
    Code of the murder of Sakhubai and was committed to trial before the<\/p>\n
    Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Pune.     The   prosecution   examined   ten<\/p>\n
    witnesses.  P. Ws.1, 2  and  3 were panch witnesses – P.W. 3 to the<\/p>\n
    discovery   Panchanama.     P.W.   4   and   P.W   7   were   respectively   the<\/p>\n
    employers   at   whose   house   the   deceased   had   worked   as   a   maid.\n<\/p>\n
    P.W. 4 was, however, declared hostile.   P.W. 5 was the doctor who<\/p>\n
    had   conducted   the   postmortem.     P.W.   6   and   P.W.   9   were   the<\/p>\n
    Investigating   Officers.   P.W.   8   Devidas   was     the   brother   of   the<\/p>\n
    deceased.   The Additional Sessions Judge at Pune by his judgment<\/p>\n
    dated   26th  December,   2002   convicted   the   Appellant   of   an   offence<\/p>\n
    under Section 302<\/a> of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer<\/p>\n
    imprisonment for life.  The judgment of conviction has been called into<\/p>\n
    question in these proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.          On behalf of the Appellant  reliance has been placed on the<\/p>\n
    evidence  of P.W.  9  Sunil  Korde who  was  the  Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
    P.W. 9 deposed that the clothes of the deceased were shown to Mr.<\/p>\n
    and Mrs. Pillai at the police station.  Those clothes were seized under<\/p>\n
    a Panchanama, but the clothes were not sealed.  P.W. 9 deposed that<\/p>\n
    the clothes could not be sealed because the dead body was unknown<\/p>\n
    and   the   victim   could   be   identified   on   the   basis   of   the   clothes.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly,   P.W.   7   stated   that   she   was   shown   the   clothes   of   the<\/p>\n
    deceased at the police station.    Reliance was sought to be placed on<\/p>\n
    the following judgments in order to support the submission that when<\/p>\n
    the bloodstained clothes of the victim have not been kept sealed till<\/p>\n
    the   time   that   they   were   sent   to   the   Chemical   Analyst,     this   would<\/p>\n
    affect the probative value of the findings of the Chemical Analyser: (i)<\/p>\n
    The State V. Motia1<\/a>; (ii)  Dasu V. State of Maharashtra2<\/a>  ; and (iii)<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra V. Prabhu Barku Gade3<\/a>.  The learned counsel<\/p>\n
    submitted that the opening of the packet containing the clothes at the
\n    1 AIR 1955 Rajasthan 82.\n<\/p>\n
    2 1995 Cri.L.J. 1933.\n<\/p>\n
    3 1995 Cri. L. J. 1432.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    police station on 10th May, 2007 seriously affects the probative value<\/p>\n
    of the evidence of the Chemical Analyser.  Moreover, learned counsel<\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   examine   the   carrier.\n<\/p>\n
    Finally,  it was  urged  that  the identification of the  dead body of  the<\/p>\n
    deceased has not been proper and it is impossible to infer that the<\/p>\n
    body which was recovered was the body of the wife of the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    These submissions would now fall for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
    4.         At   the   outset,   it   would   be   necessary   to   advert   to   the<\/p>\n
    question as to whether there was a proper identification of the body of<\/p>\n
    the deceased.   The deceased, it is an admitted position, was in the<\/p>\n
    employment   of   Charles   and   Pramila   Pillai   who   resided   in   an<\/p>\n
    apartment     complex called Amit Apartments at Kondwa.   Sakhubai<\/p>\n
    had been working with them as a maid and resided together with the<\/p>\n
    Appellant in a temporary structure built from tin sheets.  Both P.W. 4<\/p>\n
    Charles Pillai and P.W. 7 Pramila Pillai knew the deceased who had<\/p>\n
    worked with them for over seven months as well as the Appellant who<\/p>\n
    was the spouse of the deceased.   Sakhubai was given to   alcohol.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
    On the night of 3rd  May, 2002 when she was under the influence of<\/p>\n
    liquor, the Appellant was summoned by the Pillais for taking away his<\/p>\n
    wife.     The   dead   body   of   Sakhubai   was   found   at   about   8.30   the<\/p>\n
    following morning.  The postmortem report records that the following<\/p>\n
    injuries were found externally on the body of the victim :\n<\/p>\n
               “1. Left shoulder abrasion dimension 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2.  Crush injury involving whole head and face.  All bones of<\/p>\n
               cranium crushed along with corresponding soft tissue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3. Sunburns at both arms, forearm and both lower limbs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    P.W. 5 Dr. Narkhede who was a lecturer at the Sassoon Hospital in<\/p>\n
    the   Department   of   Forensic   Science   conducted   the   postmortem<\/p>\n
    examination.  Apart from the aforesaid external             injuries,   he   also<\/p>\n
    found the following internal injuries :\n<\/p>\n
               “1.  All bones of cranium crushed along with corresponding
\n               soft   tissue   meanings   lacerated.   Brain   also   lacerated   at
\n               many places.  Base of skull fractured.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    P.W.  5  opined  that these   were  sufficient  to  cause death  and  had<\/p>\n
    been the result of an assault with a hard, blunt and heavy object.  The<\/p>\n
    sunburns (item No.3 of the external injuries) were post-mortem while<\/p>\n
    the first and the second of the external injuries were found to be fresh<\/p>\n
    in nature.\n<\/p>\n
    5.<\/p>\n
                 P.W. 7 in the course of her deposition stated that she had<\/p>\n
    identified the victim on the basis of her hands and legs since her face<\/p>\n
    was totally crushed and could not be identified.  P.W. 8 Devidas was<\/p>\n
    the brother of the victim.  He deposed that though the forehead of the<\/p>\n
    victim   was   crushed,   the   side   of   the   face   was   in   a   position   to   be<\/p>\n
    identified.  P.W. 8 and his  sister Ambubai identified the body on the<\/p>\n
    basis of the features of both the hands and legs and some portion of<\/p>\n
    the face.  According to him the nose and mouth were intact and there<\/p>\n
    was no injury thereon.   The  upper portion including the eyes were<\/p>\n
    crushed.   There is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence of<\/p>\n
    P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 in respect of the identification of the dead body.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
    The   identification   of   the   dead   body   was     by   a   near   relative,   and<\/p>\n
    evidently on the basis of the limbs and other features.   Though the<\/p>\n
    face had been crushed as a result of the severe blow dealt with by the<\/p>\n
    stone   used   as   a   weapon   of   offence,     it   cannot   be   said   that   the<\/p>\n
    identification   of   the   body   was   rendered   impossible.     P.W.   8   in<\/p>\n
    particular as the brother of the deceased was in a position to identify<\/p>\n
    her body on the basis of his perception of her features.  P.W. 7 was<\/p>\n
    the   employer   with   whom   the   deceased   had   worked   for   several<\/p>\n
    months.  There was no reason for P.W. 7 to depose falsely nor is any<\/p>\n
    such suggestion put to the witness.  The prosecution has established<\/p>\n
    that   the   dead   body   was   of   Sakhubai   and   that   the   death   was<\/p>\n
    homicidal.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The principal submission that has been urged on behalf of<\/p>\n
    the Appellant is that the clothes of the deceased were not sealed and<\/p>\n
    that   as   a   result   the   probative   value   of   the   report   of   the   Chemical<\/p>\n
    Analyser   is   substantially   diluted.     Now   P.W.   9   who   was   the<\/p>\n
    Investigating Officer deposed that the clothes of the deceased were<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
    shown to Mr. and Mrs. Pillai at the  police station.  According to him,<\/p>\n
    though the clothes were seized under a Panchanama, they were not<\/p>\n
    sealed and could not be sealed because the dead body was unknown<\/p>\n
    and the victim could be identified on the basis of the clothes.  In the<\/p>\n
    State   V.   Motia<\/a>  (AIR   1955   Rajasthan   82)   a   Division   Bench   of   the<\/p>\n
    Rajasthan High Court held thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “Whenever   it   is   desired   by   the   prosecution   that   certain
\n               articles, which have been recovered from accused persons<\/p>\n
               are   to   be   identified,   or   are   to   be   sent   to   the   Chemical
\n               Examiner   for   analysis,   it   is   necessary   that   the   officer<\/p>\n
               recovering   the   articles   should   immediately   take   steps   to
\n               seal them and evidence should be produced that the seals
\n               were not tampered with till the identification is over, or till
\n               the articles are sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               In the absence of such precautions it would always be open
\n               to the accused to say that the police later put human blood<\/p>\n
               on   the   articles   in   order   to   implicate   the   accused.     It   is,
\n               therefore,   necessary   for   the   prosecution   to   produce
\n               evidence that steps were taken at once to seal the articles,
\n               and that from the time the articles came into possession of<\/p>\n
               the police to the time they were sent for identification before
\n               a Magistrate or for examination to the Chemical Examiner
\n               the seals remained intact.  This evidence is missing in this
\n               case.  It is, of course, not difficult to sprinkle a few human<\/p>\n
               blood stains on articles recovered if somebody wants to do
\n               so.    We do not say that this was done in the present case;
\n               but as precautions were not taken, the argument raised on
\n               behalf   of   the   accused   that   this   might   have   been   done
\n               remains   unrefuted.     Under   these   circumstances,   we   find<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
              that we cannot place the same reliance on the discovery of
\n              blood   stains   on   these   various  articles   as  we   would   have<\/p>\n
              done if necessary precautions had been taken.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The same view was reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
    Dasu v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> (1985 Cri. L.J. 1933) :\n<\/p>\n
              “In order that there should not be any tampering with the
\n              articles   which   are   said   to   be   stained   with   blood   the<\/p>\n
              investigating officers are expected to put them in a proper
\n              cover and to seal them in the presence of the panchas and<\/p>\n
              to forward them to the chemical analyser with proper seals.
\n              The forwarding letter issued by the Investigating Officer to<\/p>\n
              the   Chemical  Analyser  in  this case   is at   Ex.  26.    In   that
\n              letter it is mentioned that all those articles were wrapped in
\n              brown   papers   and   were   duly   sealed,   but   there   is   no
\n              evidence as to when they were wrapped and sealed.   The<\/p>\n
              non-sealing of the articles immediately after the seizure in
\n              the   presence   of   the   panchas   is   bound   to   affect   the<\/p>\n
              probative value of the findings of the Chemical Analyser.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    This was reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra V. Prabhu Barku Gade<\/a> (1995 Cri. L. J. 1432) where the<\/p>\n
    judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was followed.  It was urged that<\/p>\n
    the probative value of the recovery of the bloodstained clothes of the<\/p>\n
    deceased would be substantially diluted if not obliterated as a result of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the failure of the investigating officer to seal them.\n<\/p>\n
                In Khet Singh vs Union of India<\/a>, (2002) 4 SCC 380, the law<\/p>\n
    on the subject was revisited by the Supreme Court and the following<\/p>\n
    principles have been enunciated:\n<\/p>\n
              “Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort
\n              of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure,<\/p>\n
              the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible
\n              and the court would consider all the circumstances and find <\/p>\n
              out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the
\n              accused.     If   the   search   and   seizure   was   in   complete<\/p>\n
    defiance  of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of
\n              the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or
\n              interpolated during the course of such search or seizure,
\n              then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be  <\/p>\n
              admissible in evidence.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                In   the   present   case,   the   defence   has   been   unable   to<\/p>\n
    establish any prejudice, much less a serious prejudice as enunciated<\/p>\n
    by the Supreme Court in Khet Singh’
\n                                      s case.  There is no material on<\/p>\n
    the   record   to   indicate   the   possibility   or   likelihood   of   the   evidence<\/p>\n
    collected   to   have   been   tampered   with   or   interpolated.     No   such<\/p>\n
    suggestion has been put to the Investigating Officer during the course<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
    of cross examination.  The judgments which have been relied upon by<\/p>\n
    the Counsel for the Appellant must now be read in conjunction with<\/p>\n
    the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in  Khet Singh’
\n                                                               s  case<\/p>\n
    (supra). No prejudice is established or shown.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         The issue that merits consideration then   is as to whether<\/p>\n
    the circumstantial evidence on the record is sufficient to bring home<\/p>\n
    the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.  It is well settled<\/p>\n
    that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence the prosecution<\/p>\n
    must establish   all the necessary links in the case and the evidence<\/p>\n
    must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.   The first aspect<\/p>\n
    of the case that merits   attention is the evidence of P.W. 4 Charles<\/p>\n
    Pillai  and his spouse Pramila Pillai, P.W. 7. They are witnesses to<\/p>\n
    what had happened on the night of 3rd May, 2002.  P.W. 4, it must be<\/p>\n
    noted was  declared  hostile  but  the   law  does  not  mandate  that  the<\/p>\n
    entirety of  his testimony  should be discarded.  P.W. 4 deposed that<\/p>\n
    he knew the Appellant whose wife Sakhubai was working with him<\/p>\n
    and   P.W.   7   as   their   maid.     Sakhubai   was   addicted   to   liquor.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    Whenever   she   consumed   liquor,   she   would   sleep     in   the   parking<\/p>\n
    space of the apartment belonging to P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 out of fear for<\/p>\n
    the Appellant.  The flat adjoining the home of P.W. 4 and 7 was empty<\/p>\n
    and the keys to the flat had been kept by a builder with P.W.   4 with a<\/p>\n
    view to show the flat to prospective customers.     On 3rd  May, 2002<\/p>\n
    when he returned between 9 and 9.30 p.m., P.W. 4 was informed by<\/p>\n
    P.W.   7   that   Sakhubai   had   consumed   liquor   and   had   slept   in   the<\/p>\n
    adjoining flat.  The Appellant was sitting behind  the compound wall.\n<\/p>\n
    P.W. 4 deposed that   he called the Appellant and informed him that<\/p>\n
    his wife had consumed alcohol and was sleeping in the adjoining flat.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter the Appellant took Sakhubai away with him.  To the same<\/p>\n
    effect is the deposition of P.W. 7, Pramila Pillai who stated that   at<\/p>\n
    about 9.00 p.m. the accused was called to her house and was told to<\/p>\n
    take Sakhubai away with him.  The Appellant was last seen by P.W. 4<\/p>\n
    and P.W. 7 when he left their flat at about 9.00 p.m. on 3rd May, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    The body of Sakhubai was found   the next morning at 8.30 a.m. The<\/p>\n
    only person who could have furnished a cogent explanation of what<\/p>\n
    transpired in the meantime after Sakhubai left the house of P.W. 4<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
    and P.W. 7 is furnished by the Appellant.   P.W. 4 deposed   that at<\/p>\n
    about 8 or 8.30 a.m. on 4th  May, 2002 the Appellant met him when he<\/p>\n
    came to the flat along with his son and told him that his wife had run<\/p>\n
    away as usual.   P.W. 7 stated that on the morning of 4th  May, 2002<\/p>\n
    when the Appellant came to the flat, he requested her for breakfast<\/p>\n
    and upon being questioned  about where Sakhubai was, the Appellant<\/p>\n
    replied that she had gone to visit her sister.   Thereafter, as P.W. 4<\/p>\n
    deposed, the Appellant shifted to Nanapeth on 5th May, 2002 together<\/p>\n
    with   his   belongings   and   articles   and   left   the   place   where   he   had<\/p>\n
    originally resided.  No suggestion was made in the cross-examination<\/p>\n
    to   P.W.8   Devidas   who   resided  at   village   Dhanori  together   with   his<\/p>\n
    sister to the effect that Sakhubai had visited him or the sister.  In fact,<\/p>\n
    it   would   appear   that   when   confronted   with   a   question   about   the<\/p>\n
    whereabouts   of   his   wife     the   Appellant   chose   to   give   inconsistent<\/p>\n
    explanations to P.W. 4 and P.W.7.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          Apart   from   this   aspect   of   the   circumstantial   evidence   the<\/p>\n
    prosecution established at the trial that on  a statement made by the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
    Appellant the Investigating Officer, P.W. 9 was led together with the<\/p>\n
    panchas to a place where the Appellant had hidden the blood stained<\/p>\n
    clothes   worn   by  him.     The  Appellant   led  the  police   and  the  panch<\/p>\n
    witnesses to a shed situated in front of Amit Apartments at Kondwa<\/p>\n
    and  took   out  a  plastic  bag  containing  the  clothes  which   were  kept<\/p>\n
    beneath the tin sheets.  P.W. 9 deposed that there were bloodstains<\/p>\n
    on the sleeves of the shirt and on the pant.   The Panchanama was<\/p>\n
    proved in evidence  and marked  as Exhibit 24.    Articles 12  and  13<\/p>\n
    were the clothes worn by the Appellant.   All the seized articles were<\/p>\n
    forwarded to the Chemical Analyser in a sealed condition.  The blood<\/p>\n
    on the shirt was found to be of blood group A while the blood group<\/p>\n
    for   the   stains   on   the   trouser   was   inconclusive.     The   trouser   was<\/p>\n
    stained with blood at places and the report of the Chemical Analyser<\/p>\n
    was that it appeared to have been washed.   In his statement under<\/p>\n
    Section 313 the Appellant totally denied the recovery of his clothes.\n<\/p>\n
    There   was   therefore   no   explanation   by   the   Appellant   of   the<\/p>\n
    circumstances in which the bloodstains had appeared on his shirt and<\/p>\n
    the trouser.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.          Insofar   as   the   aspect   of   motive   is   concerned   P.W.   8<\/p>\n
    Devidas who was  the  brother  of the deceased deposed  that  about<\/p>\n
    one month prior to the date of the incident the Appellant and Sakhubai<\/p>\n
    had come to his village and prior to the visit a quarrel had taken place<\/p>\n
    between them.   Sakhubai   was addicted to liquor and used to go to<\/p>\n
    drink liquor even together with strangers.  There used to be frequent<\/p>\n
    quarrels between  the  accused and  the  victim and P.W. 8 deposed<\/p>\n
    that both of them had quarreled when they had come to his house.\n<\/p>\n
    P.W. 8 deposed that at that time the Appellant had brought a sickle<\/p>\n
    along with him and threatened the deceased that he would finish her<\/p>\n
    “very soon”.  Thereafter P.W. 8 persuaded both of them to go back to<\/p>\n
    their home.  During the course of the cross examination of the witness<\/p>\n
    a question was asked to him as to whether he had lodged a complaint<\/p>\n
    following   the   threat   administered   by   the   Appellant,   but   P.W.   8<\/p>\n
    answered in the negative.  It was most unnatural to expect that P.W. 8<\/p>\n
    should   lodge   a   complaint   on   a   quarrel   between   his   sister   and   her<\/p>\n
    husband.  The evidence of P.W. 8, as indeed the evidence of P.W. 4<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
    and 7, shows that Sakhubai was addicted to liquor.   P.W. 4 in fact<\/p>\n
    deposed that when she consumed liquor Sakhubai would not go back<\/p>\n
    to   her   matrimonial   home   but   would   sleep   in   the   parking   space<\/p>\n
    because of the fear of the Appellant.  The night of May 3, 2002 was<\/p>\n
    no exception insofar as he consumption of liquor by Sakhubai was<\/p>\n
    concerned.  The prosecution has established a motive on the part of<\/p>\n
    the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    10.<\/p>\n
               The  medical  evidence  shows  that  Sakhubai  was   done  to<\/p>\n
    death by a heavy, hard and blunt object.  The severity of the injuries is<\/p>\n
    evident from the fact that her head and face were crushed;   all the<\/p>\n
    bones of the Cranium were crushed along with the corresponding soft<\/p>\n
    tissue.  The brain was lacerated at many places and the base of the<\/p>\n
    skull was fractured.   The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the<\/p>\n
    prosecution   provides   all   the   necessary  links   which   bring   home   the<\/p>\n
    guilt   of   the   Appellant   beyond   reasonable   doubt.     The   subsequent<\/p>\n
    conduct of the Appellant in furnishing a false explanation in regard to<\/p>\n
    the whereabouts of his wife immediately after the crime and in shifting<\/p>\n
    his place of residence  in order to conceal his identity lend support to<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                             19<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   case   of   the   prosecution.     The   Appellant   failed   to   lodge   any<\/p>\n
    missing report in regard to the absence of his wife. The fact that in his<\/p>\n
    statement   under   Section   313<\/a>   of   the   Cr.   P.C.,   he   furnished   no<\/p>\n
    explanation of  what  happened when  he left  the  Pillai  home on  the<\/p>\n
    night of 3rd  May 2002 with his wife furnishes an additional piece of<\/p>\n
    supporting material.   That was a fact which was peculiarly within his<\/p>\n
    own knowledge.  The cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence<\/p>\n
    is to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         In   these   circumstances,   the   judgment   of   the   Additional<\/p>\n
    Sessions Judge convicting the Appellant of an offence under Section<\/p>\n
    302<\/a> of the Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life is<\/p>\n
    correct.     There   is   no   merit   in   the   Appeal.     The   Appeal   shall<\/p>\n
    accordingly stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                            DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span>
\n            20<\/span><\/p>\n
                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:31:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2004 Shivanna Bhimsen Lokhande Convict No.C-13291 Yeravada Central Prison 411 006. ..Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ig …. […]<\/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-261481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T11:08:00+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T11:08:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3785,\"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\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T11:08:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T11:08:00+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T11:08:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"},"wordCount":3785,"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\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","name":"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T11:08:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yeravada-central-prison-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yeravada Central Prison vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261481","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=261481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}