{"id":271273,"date":"2007-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-14T11:35:45","modified_gmt":"2017-07-14T06:05:45","slug":"vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  431 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nVikram & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
   1.\tAppellants who are five in number are before us being aggrieved by
\nand dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment of the High Court of Bombay,
\nAurangabad Bench at Aurangabad dated 5.9.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 398 of 1999 affirming a judgment of conviction and sentence dated
\n30.9.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions  Case No. 18 of
\n1998 convicting the appellants herein inter alia for commission of an offence
\nunder Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 147 read with Section 149<\/a>
\nof the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
   2.\tAppellants herein were proceeded against for committing an offence
\nof culpable homicide amounting to murder of one  Dnyandeo and for
\ncausing hurt to one Bapu (P.W. 6) on 22.1.1997 at about 10.30 p.m. in the
\nnight in Village Pangulgavhan within the Police Station Ashti in the District
\nof Beed.   First Information Report in respect thereof was lodged at 7.30
\na.m. on 23.1.1997 by PW-2 Rohidas Gite alleging that while he had been
\nsleeping in his house after taking meal, his uncle Ajinath Gite (P.W. 3) came
\nto his house to inform him that thieves had come and some ‘tumult’ is going
\non, whereupon both of them went towards the place of occurrence and found
\nthat both the ‘deceased’ and the ‘injured’ were being assaulted by accused
\nNo. 1 Vikram, accused No. 2 Mokinda, accused No. 3 Tatyaba, accused No.
\n4 Bhagan, accused No. 5 Rambhau, alongwith some others (who being
\njuvenile, had been separately tried).    They, although, tried to intervene, but
\nwere threatened not to do so.  He thereafter went to the House of the
\ndeceased and informed his wife as well as Raosaheb Namdeo Gite who
\ncame to the place of occurrence.  Other persons including Ashruba
\nPandharinath, Mahadeo Pandharinath, Shyamrao Gajaba, Ashok Baba,
\nMahadeo Lahanu also came to the spot.   The injured were, by that time
\ndragged upto the river by the assailants.   They were asked to stop assaulting
\nand were furthermore requested in the event they had any dispute with him
\nin regard to their land should take recourse to the law whereupon the
\nassailants left them in the river and fled.    Both the deceased and Bapu
\nKisan Gite (PW-6) were found to be unconscious.\n<\/p>\n
   3.\tP.W. 2 Rohidas was advised by others to inform the Police Station on
\ntelephone whereupon he went to Village Bhalavani alongwith Ajinath,
\nGangaram and Bayaji Bhiva at about 1:00 a.m. and informed the Officer in
\ncharge of Police Station on telephone.   On receipt of the said information, a
\npolice officer visited the place of occurrence at Village Pangulgavhan.   In
\nthe meanwhile, the injured were shifted in front of the house of Laxmibai
\nAshruba Gite.  They were later on shifted by the police personnel to the
\nGovernment Hospital at Ashti. Whereas Dnyandeo Vithoba Gite was
\ndeclared dead,   PW-6 was admitted in the hospital.   Mr. Suresh Gange ,
\nP.W. 8 registered a case under Section 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 149<\/a> and 302<\/a>.   He seized
\nthree articles including a bamboo stick measuring about 2 ft. and 5 inches
\nwith a diameter of about 2 inches.  Other articles were also seized.
\nAppellants were arrested on 24.1.1997.   The prosecution case was proved
\nprimarily by PW-2 the informant, PW-3 Aginath, PW-4 Janardhan and the
\ninjured witness P.W. 6 Bapu.\n<\/p>\n
    4.\tThe learned Trial Judge by reason of a judgment of conviction and
\nsentence dated 30.9.1999 on arriving at a finding of guilt, awarded life
\nimprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000\/- each under Section 302<\/a> read with
\nSection 149<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment of 6 months for
\ncommission of the offence under Section 149<\/a>, fine of Rs. 500\/- each under
\nSection 147<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> and fine of Rs. 500\/- under Section 149<\/a> of
\nthe Indian Penal Code.  The appeal preferred by the appellants thereagainst
\nhas been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    5.\tMr. Arvind V. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe appellants in support of this appeal inter alia would submit;\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tP.W. 2 having informed the officer-in-charge of Police Station Ashti
\non telephone which having been recorded in writing, the First Information
\nReport lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 23.1.1997 is barred under Section 162<\/a> of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tSome of the witnesses having been examined by the Investigating
\nOfficer on 8.8.1997, their statements could not have been relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe fact that First Information Report reached the Magistrate only on
\n24.1.1997 would go to show that the same was an anti-timed one.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe witnesses having failed to disclose vital information in their
\nstatements under Section 161<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned
\nSessions Judge as also the High Court committed a serious illegality in
\npassing the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tIn any view of the matter, no specific overt act having been attributed
\nto any of the appellants herein, conviction under Section 302<\/a>\/149<\/a> of the
\nIndian Penal Code cannot be sustained and they should be convicted only
\nunder Section 325<\/a> thereof.\n<\/p>\n
   6.\tMr. Sushil Karanjkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nState would, however, support the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
   7.\tHomicidal nature of death of the said Dnyandeo is not in dispute.
\nSufferance of injuries by Bapu Kisan Gite, P.W. 6 is also not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
   8.\tDr. Subhash Mahadeo Patharkar P.W. 7 conducted the post mortem
\nexamination.   He found the following ante-mortem injuries.
\n“1.\tC.L.W. on the right parietal region placed
\nvertically 1=”  x 1″ x bone deep.   No evidence of
\nfracture felt on palpation, object used was hard and
\nblunt.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tC.L.W. on right front to parietal region, oblique,
\nplaced 2″ x 1″ x bone deep, no evidence of
\nfracture, felt on palpation, object used hard and
\nblunt.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tC.L.Ws. two in number of right index finger, =” x
\n<" x 1\/8", each, object was hard and blunt.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAn abrasion on right Ileac region, curved 2″ x
\n1\/8″.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tC.L.W. on right leg 1″ x = x <".\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAbrasion on right medical malleouls, =” x <".\n<\/p>\n
7.\tMultiple contusions over the back of variable size
\nand shape placed in variable directions caused by
\nLathi.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tMultiple imprint abrasion over back of variable
\nsize, caused by chain of variable directions.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tSix contusions on right buttock and right thigh,
\nhorizontally placed, one above the other 7″ x 1 =”
\nobject hard and blunt (Lathi)”\n<\/p>\n
    9.\tAmongst others, on the left lungs, two internal injuries were found;
\n“1.\tContusion on left lower lobe 3″ x 2=” cut
\nsection contains blood.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tContusion on left upper lobe, 4″ x 3″ cut
\nsection contains blood.”\n<\/p>\n
  10.\tThe said two injuries were referable to external injury No. 7.\n<\/p>\n
  11.\tPW-9 , Dr. Dattu Zambre examined Babu Kisan Gite and found the
\nfollowing injuries on his person;\n<\/p>\n
1.\tContused lacerated wound on left parietal region, 8
\ncm. x 0.5 cm. x bone deep, margins irregular
\nanteroposterior in direction.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tContusion over left thigh, ant, side in middle 1\/3, 8″
\nx 1 =” vertical direction margins irregular.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMultiple contusions over right anteromedial aspect
\nof thigh, 5″ x 1=”, 4″ 1=”, 6″ x 1 =”, 4″ x 1 =”, 5″\n<\/p>\n
x  =” , intermixed with each other.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tContusion, on abdomen above unblicious 3″ x 1″
\nhorizontal, irregular margins.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tContused abrasion on left shin of tibia Lower 1\/3rd,
\n<" x <" margins irregular.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tContused Abrasion, on right shin of tibia Lower 1\/3,
\n<" x <", margins irregular."\n<\/p>\n
 12.\tAll the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects like lathi.\n<\/p>\n
 13.\tIt is also not in dispute that the parties were having disputes over
\nsome lands.\n<\/p>\n
 14.\tIt has also not been suggested before us that PW-2 was enemically
\ndisposed of  towards the appellants.   Both the parties are from the said
\nVillage.\n<\/p>\n
 15.\tP.W. 2 in the First Information Report as also in his deposition before
\nthe Court categorically stated that eight persons i.e. the appellants herein
\nand three juveniles were assaulting the deceased and PW-6.   On his asking
\nthem not to assault the deceased and P.W. 6, he was told that he had no
\nbusiness to interfere as he was not concerned with the matter.   He
\nimmediately informed Tulsabai and Raosaheb.   Tulsabai and Raosaheb
\nalso asked the appellants to leave the deceased, but not only assault upon
\nthem did not stop, they were dragged towards the river on the western side.
\nSome other persons in the meantime came to the spot and they also asked
\nthe accused to leave the victims.   There was no police post in the village.
\nAs he was advised to make a phone call, keeping in view the fact that the
\ndeceased and injured were to be brought back to the village, P.W. 2 had to
\ngo to the house of Moinoddin Pathan to wake him up as the Gram
\nPanchayat Office, where the phone was available, was adjoining to his
\nhouse.   His information to the police officers could not have been in great
\ndetails.   As he was assured that the police would be coming, he waited for
\nthe police party by the side of Ashti Bhalwani to Pangulgavan Road.  The
\npolice party came at about 1 a.m.  They came in a police jeep to the house
\nof Laxmibai and then only the deceased and the injured could be sent to the
\nhospital.   It appears from the evidence of Dr. Dutta, that the deceased was
\nbrought to the hospital under a requisition letter.   It was evidently issued
\nby the Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
   16. The said requisition letter was proved and marked as Exh. 49.\n<\/p>\n
   17.  PW-6 was found to be semi-conscious and he was not in a position
\nto reply to the questions put to him.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  He was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital on 23.1.1997 and
\nwas discharged only on 26.1.1997. In a situation of this nature, explanation
\nof PW-2 and others that they gave priority to the treatment of the deceased
\nand the accused which occasioned the delay in lodging the First
\nInformation Report and the same having been accepted by two courts
\nbelow, we do not find any reason to disagree.   We find no reason to
\ndiscard the testimony of P.W. 2 who is an independent witness.\n<\/p>\n
  19.  Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Savant on a decision of this
\nCourt in State of M.P. v  Kriparam  [ (2003) 12 SCC 675].   In that case,
\nthe High Court had reversed a judgment of acquittal.   This Court found the
\nevidence of the eye-witnesses to be artificial.   At one stage they had said
\nthat they were  at the same place but later on changed their story alleging
\nthat they had been sleeping separately.  The Court found so much
\ncontradictions in regard to the direction and place the witnesses said to
\nhave run away from the alleged place of occurrence and their hiding at
\nother place till next morning, was found to be un-acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
   20. It is on the aforementioned backdrop of events, this Court opined that
\nthe delay in lodging the First Information Report was attempted to be
\nexplained only by inventing the story that they fled away from the scene of
\noccurrence and were hiding till 8 o’clock in the morning.   This Court
\nfurthermore found contradictions even in relation thereto.\n<\/p>\n
  21.\tThe said decision cannot be said to have any application in the instant
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
   22. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Savant on Shankarlal  v State
\nof Rajasthan [(2004) 10 SCC 632].   In that case also, the testimonies of
\nthe alleged eye-witnesses were not believed. \tTherein also, the
\nexplanation for lodging the First Information Report after some delay viz.
\nthat the informant upon seeing the occurrence got scared and took different
\nroad, reached the village at about 4 or 4.15 pm,  whereas the occurrence
\nhad taken place at about 1.30 a.m., the delay in lodging the First
\nInformation Report at 3.15 a.m. on the next date was not believed stating;\n<\/p>\n
“In such circumstances this unexplained long
\ndelay also creates a doubt in our mind as to the
\ngenuineness of the prosecution case. Once we are
\nnot convinced with the evidence of PW 6 then
\nthere is no other material to base a conviction on
\nthe appellant, hence we are of the opinion that
\nthe appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt,
\ntherefore, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.”\n<\/p>\n
  23.\tThe said decision also has no application to the fact of the present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
    24. It may be true that P.W. 2 had informed the officer in charge of the
\nPolice Station on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said call
\nhad to be made has been noticed by us heretobefore.\n<\/p>\n
   25. The Head Constable states that he had written down the same but
\nthen it must have been a cryptic report and only for the purpose of visiting
\nthe scene of occurrence.   He as well as the Investigating Officer did not
\nsay that it was a detailed report.\n<\/p>\n
   26. If, in the aforementioned premise, another First Information Report
\nwhich was a detailed one came to be recorded, no exception can be taken
\nto the same being treated as a First Information Report.\n<\/p>\n
   27. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Savant on Tapinder Singh v State of
\nPunjab and Another[(1970) 2 SCC 113]. Therein this Court held that
\ncryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify
\ncommission of a cognizable offence cannot be treated as first information
\nreport.\n<\/p>\n
   28. See also State of U.P. v P.A. Madhu [AIR 1984 SC 1523], Ramsinh
\nBavaji Jadeja v State of Gujarat [(1994) 2 SCC 685]  Binay Kumar Singh v
\nState of Bihar [AIR 1997 SC 322] and Soma Bhai v State of Gujarat [AIR
\n1975 SC 1453].\n<\/p>\n
   29. We must notice that the appellants have not questioned the factum of
\ncoming of the police personnel to the village, taking the deceased and the
\ninjured to the hospital, seizure of the articles, preparation of panchnamas
\netc.. As major part of the actions taken by the Investigating Officer
\npursuant to the First Information Report in this case is not disbelieved,
\nWe fail to see any reason as to why the statement of P.W. 2 made before
\nthe  Officer in-charge on 23.1.1997 at 7.30 a.m. should be discarded.\n<\/p>\n
  30.  Before embarking upon the other contentions raised by Mr. Savant,
\nwe may notice a disturbing feature of this case. Statements of the witnesses
\nand in particular, the injured witness, P.W. 6 had been recorded.  The said
\nstatement was available on the records of the learned trial judge while
\nconsidering of the application for bail filed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
   31.  The learned trial judge in his judgment in the proceeding sheet dated
\n27.2.1997 noticed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“7.   Perused the case papers.  It reveals from the
\ncase papers that not only the complainant is an eye
\nwitness but Ajnath, Rohidas, Tulsabai and Inured
\nBapu also stated about the occurrence consistently.
\nThe post mortem report support the fact of
\noccurrence as narrated by the eye witnesses. On
\nperusal of the F.I.R. and other witnesses at least at
\nthis stage it cannot be said that F.I.R. is belated.
\nThus from the aforesaid material there is a prima
\nfacie case against all these applicants for the
\noffence punishable u\/secs. 147, 148, 149 and 302
\nof I.P.C<\/a>.   The investigation is in progress.  Some
\nof the accused are yet to be arrested.   Admittedly
\nthere is a long standing enmity between the
\naccused persons and the family of the deceased
\nand others.   It is seen from the case papers that
\nthese applicant and co-accused armed with deadly
\nweapons attacked on deceased and his nephew
\nBapu and though eye witness attempted to rescue
\nthem the accused did not allow them to came and
\nmake any intervention. On perusal of the case
\npapers it is seen that the injured Bapu made a repot
\nthat some of the relatives of the accused gave
\nthreats to him for not disclosing the names of the
\naccused before the police.  Thus if the
\ncircumstances in which the alleged incident taken
\nplace, the conduct of the accused persons at the
\nrelevant time of the alleged incident and the above
\nreferred facts considered together I find much
\nsubstance in the contention of the learned
\nA.P.P……”\n<\/p>\n
    32. Learned Trial Judge in his judgment categorically held that only an
\nadditional statement of P.W. 6 Bapu was recorded on 8.8.1997 although
\ninitially his statement was recorded immediately after the alleged incident.
\nP.W. 6 had also informed the authorities that he was being threatened by
\nthe relatives of the appellants not to disclose their names.\n<\/p>\n
   33.  Despite the fact that the statement of P.W. 6 and other witnesses
\nwere on record and P.W. 6 had been threatened by the relatives of the
\nappellants, the same did not form part of the case diary.   The learned Trial
\nJudge in the aforementioned situation opined that the Investigating Officer
\nwas helping the appellants in the following words.
\n“57.  For above stated reasons, so far as the
\nattack of the defence on record of the belated
\nstatement of P.W. 6 Bapu is concerned, looses it
\nmuch force be cause from the previous Court
\nrecord itself it is evident that there was statement
\nof P.W. 6 Bapu which was produced for the
\nscrutiny and perusal of the court in the month of
\nFebruary 1997 itself while entertaining the bail
\napplication and like magic vand the said
\nstatement vanished from the police record for
\nwhich P.W. 12 P.S.I. Ovhal could not give any
\nsatisfactory explanation.  Leave apart the
\nquestion of vanishing of the statement from the,
\npolice record there is not a single word about it in
\nthe entire police diary which itself, I am painful
\nto point out reflects on dishonest, perfunctory
\nmanner of investigation by the concerned police
\nofficer.   I am really surprised as to how the
\ndefence could at this juncture venture to submit
\nthat the investigation is tainted favoring the
\naccused while from the above fact the fact is
\notherwise.”\n<\/p>\n
  34.\t The reason for the Investigating Officer in interpolating  the case
\ndiary and not producing the purported recording of the information
\nreceived by him on phone is not difficult to comprehend.  We have grave
\ndoubt even in regard to the statement of the Head Constable that he had
\nrecorded in writing any information received from P.W. 2 on phone.
\nPolice Officers might not have recorded the said statements only to help
\nthe appellants.   We would have otherwise held that benefit therefor should
\ngo to the accused, but in this case the fact that statements were made
\nbefore the police at the earliest possible opportunity is available on record.
\nWe have been taken through the deposition of the eye witnesses. In
\nparticular our attention has been drawn to purported omissions of the said
\nwitnesses.   We have considered each one of them carefully. The purported
\nomissions related only to the details of the occurrence, but the fact that
\nP.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 were eye witnesses to the occurrence does not stand
\nthereby disproved in any manner whatsoever. The occurrence took place
\non 22.1.1997.   They were examined in Court two and a half years later, If
\nthere occurred some contradictions or even assuming they had omitted to
\nstate the incident in great details, the same by itself would not lead to a
\nconclusion that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case.\n<\/p>\n
  35.  We, see no reason to differ with the findings of the courts below,
\nparticularly in view of the fact that P.W. 6 was an injured witness.  He
\nadmittedly received serious injuries, remained unconscious for a long time
\nand had to remain as indoor patient till 26.1.1997.   So far as the
\nsubmission of the learned counsel that the appellants did not have any
\ncommon object to cause the death of Dnyandeo is concerned, we also find
\nno merit therein.  Eight persons came together.  They assaulted the
\ndeceased and P.W. 6 indiscriminately.   Despite having been asked to stop
\nassaulting them, not only by P.W. 2 but also by the wife of the deceased,
\nthey did not pay any heed thereto.  They continued to assault them.  They
\ndragged them to the west bank of the river and only left them there when a
\nlarge number of people gathered and asked them not to do so.\n<\/p>\n
   36.  The question, as to whether in a given case common object has been
\nmade out or not, will depend upon the facts and circumstances thereof;
\nConduct of the parties and the manner in which the occurrence has taken
\nplace, will have some bearing on the question.   We, keeping in view the
\nfacts and circumstances of this case, are of the opinion that the submission
\nthat it is not a case where despite the fact that specific overt acts on the part
\nof each of the appellant herein had not been specifically stated, they cannot
\nbe held guilty only under Section 325<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
  37.  In Bhima alias Bhimrao Sida Kamble and Others v State of
\nMaharashtra [(2002) 7 SCC 33], whereupon Mr. Savant placed strong
\nreliance, this Court noticed that some accused persons were held to be
\ncarrying common object whereas another was held to have common
\nintention.   There was no evidence as to the nature of weapons with which
\nthey were armed; and in fact there was no evidence to show that the
\nappellants therein had any weapon with them or caused any hurt to
\nanybody.  A large number of persons were involved. In the aforementioned
\nsituation, this Court found that the object of the mob was to teach the
\ndeceased a lesson who was a bully in the village and only in that situation
\nan inference was drawn that the common object was to commit offences
\nunder Section 323<\/a> and 325<\/a> and not under Section 302<\/a> read with Section
\n149<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
  38.\tThe said decision have no application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
  39.\tThere is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 431 of 2006 PETITIONER: Vikram & Ors RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 - 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\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-14T06:05:45+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T06:05:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3553,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T06:05:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 - 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\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-14T06:05:45+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T06:05:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007"},"wordCount":3553,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007","name":"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T06:05:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikram-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/271273","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=271273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271273\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}