{"id":38356,"date":"2011-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-13T07:19:04","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T01:49:04","slug":"district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                                                            crapl285.99\n                                         1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                  APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n     1     Govind Rangrao Birajdar\n           Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture\n\n     2     Shrimant s\/o Rangnrao Birajdar,\n           Age 35 years,Occ. Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n           Both R\/o Dongargaon, Tq. Nilanga\n                       \n           District Latur                                     ...Appellants\n\n                  Versus\n                      \n     The State of Maharashtra\n     (Copy to be served on Public\n     Prosecutor, High Court,\n     Bench at Aurangabad)                                     ...Respondent\n      \n\n\n                                        .....\n   \n\n\n\n     Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate h\/f Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for the appellant\n\n     Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        .....\n\n                                                CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                               DATE OF RESERVATION<\/p>\n
                               OF JUDGMENT                            : 20 .01..2011<\/p>\n
                               DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT
\n                               OF JUDGMENT                            : 28 .01.2011<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT:-\n<\/p>\n
     1      This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           crapl285.99
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
     conviction dated 5.7.1999, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1998 passed by<\/p>\n
     the learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Nilanga thereby convicting the<\/p>\n
     appellants for the offences punishable under Section 324 r.w. 34 of<\/p>\n
     I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year each with fine of<\/p>\n
     Rs.1000\/- each i\/d to suffer R.I. for one months.\n<\/p>\n
     2     The prosecution case, in brief, is as under;-\n<\/p>\n
           The incident in question took place on 18.2.1997 at about 6.30<\/p>\n
     p.m. at village Dongargaon, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur i.e. at the village<\/p>\n
     of victim as well as accused. The appellant No.1 Govind assaulted<\/p>\n
     victim Maruti s\/o Gopala by means of handle of pick axe, thereby<\/p>\n
     sustaining fracture to the bone of his left hand of upper arm and rest of<\/p>\n
     the accused persons delivered abuses to him and also subjected him<\/p>\n
     to beating by means of fists and kicks. The beating was intervened by<\/p>\n
     witnesses namely Prakash Patil, Shripati Shingnale and Govind<\/p>\n
     Salunke.\n<\/p>\n
           The victim was carried to police station Kasarshirshi and F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
     was lodged by him at 9.10 p.m. in writing. Thereafter, Maruti was<\/p>\n
     immediately referred for medical examination by P.H.C. to Medical<\/p>\n
     Officer, Kasarshirshi, but thereafter, referred the injured to Civil<\/p>\n
     Hospital, Latur as there was fracture of bone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                        crapl285.99
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
           On the basis of F.I.R. crime was registered in police station,<\/p>\n
     Kasarshirshi, at serial No. 23 of 1997 for the offences punishable<\/p>\n
     under Sections 324, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and on next day i.e. on<\/p>\n
     19.2.1997, the Investigating Officer i.e. P.H.C. Dnyanoba visited the<\/p>\n
     place of incident, drew panchnama of place of occurrence and also<\/p>\n
     seized handle of pick axe in presence of panchas, on production of the<\/p>\n
     same by the appellant No.2 Shrimant.\n<\/p>\n
           On 20.2.1997, injured Maruti died in Civil Hospital, Latur. On<\/p>\n
     the very day, panchnama of inquest and seizure of wearing apparels<\/p>\n
     of injured were drawn by P.H.C. Ranzunjare of police station Gandhi<\/p>\n
     Chowk Latur and referred the paper to police station Kasarshirshi. On<\/p>\n
     that basis P.S.I. Mundhe undertook the investigation of the crime on<\/p>\n
     21.2.1997 and added Section 302 of I.P.C. with the permission of the<\/p>\n
     Court. The accused persons were already arrested in due course of<\/p>\n
     the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
           The dead body of injured Maurti was referred for autopsy,<\/p>\n
     wherein probable cause of death of Maruti was opined by the Medical<\/p>\n
     Officer, after conducting post mortem examination, as pulmonary<\/p>\n
     embolism due to compound fracture shaft humorous.                          The<\/p>\n
     investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses in due<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                         crapl285.99
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
     course of investigation, inclusive of eye witnesses and a witness<\/p>\n
     before whom oral declaration regarding cause of death made by<\/p>\n
     injured Maruti and thus having found sufficient evidence, he charge<\/p>\n
     sheeted all the accused persons for an offence punishable under<\/p>\n
     Sections 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Nilanga.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned J.M.F.C. Nilanga, had committed the case in due course<\/p>\n
     to the Court of Sessions.\n<\/p>\n
           Charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w.34 of<\/p>\n
     I.P.C. is framed and explained to the accused at Exh.16. They have<\/p>\n
     pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total<\/p>\n
     denial. With a view to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution<\/p>\n
     examined as many as eight witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     4     The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga after framing<\/p>\n
     necessary points and recording evidence and after hearing the parties<\/p>\n
     has acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
     302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. However, the learned Judge has convicted the<\/p>\n
     present appellants, who are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the<\/p>\n
     offences punishable under Section 324 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced<\/p>\n
     them to suffer R.I. for one year each with fine of Rs.1000\/- each i\/d to<\/p>\n
     suffer R.I. for one months.      Hence, the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge is under challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                         crapl285.99
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
     5     Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that<\/p>\n
     there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the<\/p>\n
     witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution. In so far as the<\/p>\n
     evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6, there is contradictions in their evidence<\/p>\n
     as to how the incident has happened. P.W.3 says that Maruti Birajdar<\/p>\n
     came at the spot, appellant Shrimant gave blow by wooden handle of<\/p>\n
     pick axe to Maruti Birajdar then appellant Govind arrived, took handle<\/p>\n
     from Shrimant and gave blow to Maruti Birajdar and then witnesses<\/p>\n
     rescued. P.W.6 says first Shrimant came, he took the handle and hit<\/p>\n
     Maruti thereafter persons who were present have intervened and<\/p>\n
     rescued Maruti. P.W.6 says that thereafter they were separated and<\/p>\n
     then Govind came and hit deceased by taking handle of pick axe from<\/p>\n
     Shrimant. This is basic disparity of the happening of the incident and in<\/p>\n
     view of the omission and contradiction the witnesses can not be<\/p>\n
     believed.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the<\/p>\n
     prosecution in view of the oral evidence as well as the Medical<\/p>\n
     evidence has failed to prove that the fracture injury has been caused<\/p>\n
     by the appellants in as much as there is no specific statement that<\/p>\n
     blow was given on a particular part of body, particular side but on the<\/p>\n
     contrary, the medical evidence clearly suggests that the fracture is<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          crapl285.99
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
     possible due to fall on the ground considering the age of Maruti as 65<\/p>\n
     years. The injuries are on one side of the body i.e. left side, therefore,<\/p>\n
     it supports the case that the injury must have been caused due to fall.\n<\/p>\n
     In cross examination of P.W.7 Dr. Deshmukh has stated that the<\/p>\n
     compound fracture like in this case is possible in case of fall on rough<\/p>\n
     and hard surface.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in para<\/p>\n
     21 of the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has<\/p>\n
     observed that “the letter inference regarding causing of fracture<\/p>\n
     because of fall on ground, being favourable to the accused, is required<\/p>\n
     to be accepted. I find substantial force in the submission coming forth<\/p>\n
     from the defence counsel. In this case, no that much strong evidence<\/p>\n
     is coming from the prosecution to firmly conclude that the fracture of<\/p>\n
     humorous bone was necessarily caused by the alleged blows given by<\/p>\n
     the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Eventually, it is difficult to conclude that the<\/p>\n
     accused Nos. 1 and 2 are author of fracture caused to victim Maruti.”\n<\/p>\n
           He further submitted that the incident in question has taken<\/p>\n
     place at 6.30 p.m. in the evening in open space in village and there<\/p>\n
     were other witnesses, who were present and separated, however, only<\/p>\n
     interested witnesses have been examined and independent witnesses<\/p>\n
     deliberately have not examined. P.W.6 is the close relative of Maruti<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          crapl285.99
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
     namely cousin son-in-law and P.W.3 is the servant of Maruti.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, the prosecution has failed to examine independent<\/p>\n
     witnesses. He therefore, submitted that the prosecution has failed to<\/p>\n
     prove the case even prima facie and therefore, the appellants have<\/p>\n
     erroneously held guilty for the said offences.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that<\/p>\n
     assuming and without prejudice to the above, the alleged incident has<\/p>\n
     taken place at 6.30 p.m. in the evening at the spur of moment and the<\/p>\n
     accused were there empty handed. The appellants were sitting with<\/p>\n
     empty handed. It is admitted position that the said pick axe handle<\/p>\n
     belongs to some one else i.e. P.W.3 servant of Maruti, who was<\/p>\n
     present on the spot which is very usual for the villagers to have handle<\/p>\n
     of pick axe. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the appellants<\/p>\n
     had come there with handle to commit any offence but on the contrary<\/p>\n
     the incident took place at the spur of moment.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident<\/p>\n
     has taken place in the year 1997. There were no previous criminal<\/p>\n
     antecedents before alleged incident took place between the appellants<\/p>\n
     and the victim. Thereafter, the appellants and others are staying in the<\/p>\n
     village peacefully. The appellants are the agriculturists and there is no<\/p>\n
     untoward incident which has taken place and it is statement of the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                        crapl285.99
\n                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
     P.W.2 brother of Maruti that their relations were cordial before the<\/p>\n
     alleged incident. Therefore, lenient view should be taken. He further<\/p>\n
     submitted that now the appellants are married and they are having<\/p>\n
     their wives and children and they have to maintain their family. They<\/p>\n
     are agriculturists and therefore, the benefit of Probation of Offenders<\/p>\n
     Act may be given to them in view of the provisions of Section 360 of<\/p>\n
     the Criminal Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his aforesaid<\/p>\n
     submissions, has placed reliance on the following judgments of the<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.\n<\/p>\n
           i)     Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. Reported in (1988)<\/p>\n
                  4 SCC 551<\/p>\n
           ii)    State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh
\n                  Anand and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4412.\n<\/p>\n
           iii)   Khushi Balaji Janjalkar vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> 2010 (1)<\/p>\n
                  Bom. C.R. 494<\/p>\n
     6     On the other hand, learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the<\/p>\n
     evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted that their evidence<\/p>\n
     corroborates each other. He further submitted that the prosecution<\/p>\n
     witnesses have witnessed the said incident. There are also other<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                         crapl285.99
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
     witnesses who have supported the prosecution case. There is other<\/p>\n
     evidence including medical evidence which fully establishes the case<\/p>\n
     of the prosecution. Therefore, he submitted that the no interference is<\/p>\n
     warranted in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     6     I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on<\/p>\n
     behalf of the appellants and the respondent-State. I have perused the<\/p>\n
     record made available. Upon perusal of evidence of P.W.4 Dnyanoba<\/p>\n
     Shingire, PHC Buckle No. 826 (Exh.33) who was on duty in the<\/p>\n
     concerned police station at Kasarshirshi, has stated that the F.I.R. was<\/p>\n
     registered by him. He has stated in his evidence that he received Exh.\n<\/p>\n
     34 F.I.R. which bears thumb impression of injured Maruti. Thereafter<\/p>\n
     he registered the crime at Serial No. 23\/97 and referred the injured for<\/p>\n
     medical examination.\n<\/p>\n
     7     The prosecution examined P.W.3 Deelip Shivaji Bhale.                   His<\/p>\n
     evidence is at Exh.32. In his examination in chief, he has stated that<\/p>\n
     on 18.2.1997 he had been for labour work on wages for construction of<\/p>\n
     work of Chakur Road. He was accompanied by Bhanudas. They<\/p>\n
     returned back from the said labour work at about 6.00 p.m. and they<\/p>\n
     were sitting in Samaj Mandir of Dongargaon. One Shrimant was also<\/p>\n
     sitting with them. At that time Maruti Biradar came there. Shrimant<\/p>\n
     inflicted blows over hand of Maruti by means of handle of pick-axe.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                         crapl285.99
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
     The said handle was in tools of labour work. While assaulting Shrimant<\/p>\n
     had said that his father had been assaulted on the ground of grazing of<\/p>\n
     chick peace pods (Toor). By that time, neighbourers assembled there.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, Govind the brother of Shrimant came there. He took out<\/p>\n
     handle of pick-axe from the Shrimant       and started to beat Maruti.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, all assembled persons intervened the assault, and rescued<\/p>\n
     him.   Thereafter Prakash Patil lifted Maruti and caused him to sit<\/p>\n
     beneath neem tree on plat-form. Maruti was having bleeding injury<\/p>\n
     over his hand. Thereafter, relatives of Maruti came there and took him<\/p>\n
     to hospital (Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
            In his cross examination, he has stated that the pick-axe<\/p>\n
     referred by him earlier was not belonging to Shrimant, but it was<\/p>\n
     belonging to them. Relying on his cross examination counsel for the<\/p>\n
     appellant submitted that since the appellant-accused was not carrying<\/p>\n
     out any weapon, therefore, there was no question of assault by them<\/p>\n
     on Maruti. He has stated in his cross examination that he cannot<\/p>\n
     explain the location of the place, where the incident took place, to the<\/p>\n
     police. However, in his cross examination, he has stated that it is false<\/p>\n
     that he did not know the location of blow inflicted by Shrimant to<\/p>\n
     Maruti. He has denied other suggestions given by prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
     8      P.W.6 is Shripati Mohite, whose evidence is at Exh.36. In his<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           crapl285.99
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
     evidence he has stated that on 19.2.1997 he was at his residence. He<\/p>\n
     was sitting on the plat form of shop of Ratan Gore. Nagnath, Devidas,<\/p>\n
     were also with him.    At that time, a quarrel was started between<\/p>\n
     Shrimant and Maruti in front of Samaj Mandir. Shrimant was beating to<\/p>\n
     Maruti by means of handle of pick-axe.          They all intervened and<\/p>\n
     rescued Maruti. Later on Govind also beat Maruti. Therefore, Maruti<\/p>\n
     fell down. He also beat by means of handle of pick-axe. Govind had<\/p>\n
     rushed there during the course of beating by Shrimant to Maruti.\n<\/p>\n
           In his cross examination, he has admitted that Sopan is cousin<\/p>\n
     of deceased Maruti and Sopan is his father-in-law.\n<\/p>\n
           Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is material<\/p>\n
     variance in the evidence of this witness. He further submitted that<\/p>\n
     P.W.6 is interested witness and no reliance can be placed on his<\/p>\n
     evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     9     The evidence of Medical Officer Ms. Varsha Deshmukh is at<\/p>\n
     Exh.39. In her evidence she has stated that as many as following six<\/p>\n
     external injuries were found on the person of deceased Maruti. The<\/p>\n
     said injuries are reproduced herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
           i)    Compound fracture humorous left wound over arm 3x2x2<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                         crapl285.99
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
                  cm anteriorly<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           ii)    Abression over wrist right 22 cm dorsally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n           Iii)   Abression over elbow left post 2x2x2 cm\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n           iv)    Abression on knee bilat about 2x2 cm\n\n\n           v)     Abression over back near hipbone (waist) left laterally 2x2\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                  cm\n                       \n           vi)    4 Abressions on back left above 2x2 cm.\n                      \n\n<\/pre>\n
           Upon perusal of all these injuries, Doctor opined that the<\/p>\n
     probable cause of death was pulmonary embolism left due to<\/p>\n
     compound fracture shaft humorous left.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Relying on the cross examination of the witness and the opinion<\/p>\n
     given by this witness that the death of Maruti is caused due to<\/p>\n
     compound fracture shaft humorous left and therefore the Medical<\/p>\n
     evidence is not supporting the prosecution story.          Counsel further<\/p>\n
     submitted that Doctor has opined that the injuries which are mentioned<\/p>\n
     in the evidence by her, are possible in case of forgible fall on rough<\/p>\n
     and hard surface. The fractures are not generally dangerous, in<\/p>\n
     absence of any other complication.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                           crapl285.99
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
           Relying on cross examination of this witness and the opinion<\/p>\n
     expressed by her, counsel for the appellants submitted that said<\/p>\n
     injuries are possible as stated by the medical Officer in case of forgible<\/p>\n
     fall on rough and hard surface. Therefore, counsel would submit that<\/p>\n
     the evidence of this witness, eye witnesses and medical evidence is<\/p>\n
     not relevant.\n<\/p>\n
     10<\/span><\/p>\n
           In my opinion, though, to some extent there is variance in the<\/p>\n
     evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6, however, they have stated about the<\/p>\n
     incident in question i.e. assault by accused appellants on Maruti.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, there is direct evidence in the nature of eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     Medical evidence also corroborates with the evidence of eye<\/p>\n
     witnesses. Injury No.1 i.e. compound fracture humorous left wound<\/p>\n
     over arm 3x2x2 cm anteriorly is certainly possible by assault as it is<\/p>\n
     happened in the instant case. Therefore, if there would not have been<\/p>\n
     fracture then the aggravating factors leading to formation of emboli<\/p>\n
     would not have been there. Therefore, in my opinion, taking into<\/p>\n
     consideration the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.6 and medical evidence, itis<\/p>\n
     crystal clear that the appellants have assaulted Maruti. It cannot be<\/p>\n
     forgotten that ultimately Maruti has lost his life. It has also come in the<\/p>\n
     evidence of other witnesses about the presence of accused at the<\/p>\n
     spot. The prosecution has convincingly established its case through<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          crapl285.99
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
     investigating   Officer   P.W.8   Walchand      Pandharinath          Mundhe.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, in my opinion, the appellants accused did commit the<\/p>\n
     offence. Therefore, in my opinion, taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
     evidence of eye witnesses, medical evidence and other evidence<\/p>\n
     brought on record by the prosecution, impugned judgment and order<\/p>\n
     required to be confirmed. However, I find some force in the arguments<\/p>\n
     of the counsel for the appellants that assault by pick-axe was not from<\/p>\n
     sharp side of the pick-axe but admittedly the assault was done by the<\/p>\n
     side of wooden log of pick-axe.\n<\/p>\n
     11      In the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into<\/p>\n
     consideration the submission of the counsel for the appellants that the<\/p>\n
     incident in question has taken place in the year 1997, there is no<\/p>\n
     previous criminal antecedents prior to the alleged incident, the<\/p>\n
     appellants and others are residing in the village peacefully.                The<\/p>\n
     appellants are agriculturists and there is no untoward incident taken<\/p>\n
     place after they are released on bail. It is the prosecution case that<\/p>\n
     when the accused had arrived at the scene of offence, they were not<\/p>\n
     carrying any weapon. This position is also stated by the prosecution<\/p>\n
     witnesses. It is an admitted position that pick-axe handle belongs to<\/p>\n
     some one else i.e. the servant of P.W.3, who was present at the spot.\n<\/p>\n
     In the above background, I feel it appropriate to reduce the sentence<\/p>\n
     to the period as already undergone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                       crapl285.99
\n                                      15<\/span><\/p>\n
     10     In the result, the sentence awarded by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge, Nilanga dated 5.7.1999 in Sessions Case No. 39 of<\/p>\n
     1998 is reduced to the period already undergone. However, so far as<\/p>\n
     the payment of fine amount is concerned, the order of the Additional<\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge, Nilanga is maintained. Having been observed that<\/p>\n
     the sentence ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga is<\/p>\n
     reduced to the period already undergone, the appellants should not<\/p>\n
     be sent to jail.\n<\/p>\n
     11     The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. The bail bonds<\/p>\n
     stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
                                     *****<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:14 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde crapl285.99 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 1999 1 Govind Rangrao Birajdar Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture 2 Shrimant s\/o Rangnrao Birajdar, Age 35 […]<\/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-38356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDistrict Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T01:49:04+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T01:49:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2954,\"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\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\",\"name\":\"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T01:49:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T01:49:04+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T01:49:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011"},"wordCount":2954,"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\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011","name":"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T01:49:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-latur-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"District Latur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/38356","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=38356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}