{"id":42580,"date":"2010-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-10T17:37:24","modified_gmt":"2015-09-10T12:07:24","slug":"rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar<\/div>\n
                                                  1\n\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n    1. Rajesh Ramanand Pandey, age 30 years,                             )\n        Occ. Labourer, residing at Ganeshwadi,                           )\n        Near Shivsena Shakha, Manorama Nagar, Thane.                     )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    2. Rakesh  @ Raju Ramanand Pandey, age 25 years,                     )\n        Occ. Labourer, residing at Gupta Chawl, Behind                   )\n        Manorama Nagar Bus Stop, Thane.                                  )\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    (presently in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur)                     )...Appellants\n                                       ig                                 (Orig. Accused\n                                                                            Nos. 1 and 2)\n                         versus\n\n    The State of Maharashtra                                             ...Respondents\n                                     \n    Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for the appellants.\n    Mrs. A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.\n           \n\n                                                  CORAM:  P.B.MAJMUDAR &\n                                                           R.G.KETKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                  DATED:  20
\n                                                                 & 21
\n                                                             th
\n                                                                        January, 2010
\n                                                                      st
\n                                                                                      .\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.B.Majmudar, J.)<\/p>\n
    1.              This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and   order   of <\/p>\n
    conviction   recorded   by   the   IIIrd   Ad-hoc   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Thane, <\/p>\n
    dated 12th May, 2006, in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2005 by which the learned <\/p>\n
    Judge has convicted both the accused for an offence punishable under Section <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
    302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”) and each of <\/p>\n
    them is sentenced  to  suffer   imprisonment for   life  and  to  pay  a  fine   of  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1,000\/-,   in     default   to   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment     for   three   months.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also found guilty for an offence punishable under <\/p>\n
    Section 452  read with Section 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to suffer <\/p>\n
    rigorous   imprisonment   for   two   years   and   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.   5,000\/-,   in <\/p>\n
    default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.  The accused are also <\/p>\n
    found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 394 read with 34  of the <\/p>\n
    IPC and each of them sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years <\/p>\n
    and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for <\/p>\n
    two months.   The accused are also convicted in connection with an offence <\/p>\n
    punishable under Section 397 of the IPC and awarded  rigorous imprisonment <\/p>\n
    for three years. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            The accused are charged for committing murder of   the wife of <\/p>\n
    complainant viz. Krishna Dhananjay Pore on 25th June, 2004 in between 8.35 <\/p>\n
    and 12.30 Hrs. at the complainant’s room at Ghodbunder Road, Thane.  Both <\/p>\n
    the accused have been charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.  It <\/p>\n
    is the case of the prosecution that both the accused, with a view to commit <\/p>\n
    robbery, entered the house of the complainant and they wrongfully restrained <\/p>\n
    the wife of the complainant to put her in fear or hurt and thereby committed <\/p>\n
    an offence punishable under section 452 read with 34 of the IPC.  It is the case <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    of the prosecution that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, <\/p>\n
    voluntarily   caused   hurt     to   the   wife   of   the   complainant     with   the   help   of <\/p>\n
    leather   wire   of   sewing   machine   and   also   by   sharp   weapon   i.e.   knife   in <\/p>\n
    committing   robbery   and   thereby   committed     an   offence   punishable   under <\/p>\n
    Section   394   read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC.     It   is   also   the   case   of   the <\/p>\n
    prosecution that both the accused committed robbery  of ornaments made up <\/p>\n
    of gold and one sewing machine of Sansui Company in  all amounting to Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    14,000\/- and at the time of committing robbery, both the accused used deadly <\/p>\n
    weapon i.e. knife   and caused grievous hurt to the complainant’s wife and <\/p>\n
    thereby committed an offence  of robbery punishable under Section 397 of the <\/p>\n
    IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    3.             The complainant lodged a complaint with the police for an offence <\/p>\n
    punishable   under   Sections   302,   452,   394   and   397   against   the   unknown <\/p>\n
    persons.  On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer recorded the <\/p>\n
    statement of witnesses and carried out investigation.  On 6th November, 2004, <\/p>\n
    appellant No.1 came to be arrested and on  7 th January, 2005, appellant No.2 <\/p>\n
    came to be arrested.   It is the case of the prosecution that the Investigating <\/p>\n
    Officer, at the instance of appellant No.2, seized and recovered  gold bangles <\/p>\n
    and one VCD player from the house of the sister of the appellants in the State <\/p>\n
    of U.P.   On completion of enquiry, charge-sheet was filed. The learned trial <\/p>\n
    Judge, after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted <\/p>\n
                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
    the accused for the alleged offences.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            Mr.   Suryawanshi,   the   learned   Advocate   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
    appellants, submitted that considering the evidence on record it is clear that <\/p>\n
    the   prosecution   has   failed   to   make   out   a   case   against   the   accused   in   any <\/p>\n
    manner. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence and the entire case is <\/p>\n
    based on circumstantial evidence and considering the evidence on record, it <\/p>\n
    cannot   be   said   that   there   is   sufficient   evidence   even   in   the   form   of <\/p>\n
    circumstantial   evidence     to   come  to  the  conclusion    that  the   accused  have <\/p>\n
    committed the alleged offence.   Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted <\/p>\n
    that since accused were in need of money as their financial condition was not <\/p>\n
    good that ultimately the accused have committed the aforesaid offence.  The <\/p>\n
    learned   APP   submitted   that   the   motive   is,   therefore,   established.       It   is <\/p>\n
    submitted by the  learned  APP  that accused  No.2  subsequently was missing <\/p>\n
    from the place of his employment and, therefore, from the evidence on record, <\/p>\n
    the trial Judge has rightly convicted  both the accused for the  alleged offence.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we have considered <\/p>\n
    the evidence led by the prosecution on record.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            On   behalf   of   the   prosecution,   the   complainant,   Dhananjay <\/p>\n
    Sahadeo Pore, husband of the deceased  Krisha was examined as Prosecution <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Witness No.1 at Exh. 15.   The aforesaid witness has stated that he is having <\/p>\n
    Engineering Business at Manpada, Thane. The said witness has stated that he <\/p>\n
    is   residing at Deodarshan Society, Ghodbunder Road, Thane.   In the year <\/p>\n
    2004, he used to reside  along with his family which includes his wife, son and <\/p>\n
    daughter.   In his evidence, the said witness has stated that his daughter used <\/p>\n
    to go to School at about 6.30 a.m. and his son used to go to college at about <\/p>\n
    8.00 a.m. everyday.   According to the said witness, he used to come to his <\/p>\n
    house for taking lunch between 2 and 3 p.m. According to him, one Maruti <\/p>\n
    Patil and Abhijit Pore and Rakesh Pande used to work in his workshop and the <\/p>\n
    duty hours were from 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The aforesaid workers used to <\/p>\n
    visit his house for doing domestic work. The aforesaid witness has stated in his <\/p>\n
    evidence   that   on   25th  June,   2004   at   about   8.30   a.m.   he   had   gone   to   his <\/p>\n
    workshop.  His daughter had left the house about 6.30 a.m. for school and his <\/p>\n
    son had left the house at about 8.30 a.m. for college and his wife Krishna was <\/p>\n
    alone in the house.   At about 12.30 p.m., the daughter of the complainant <\/p>\n
    made   a   telephone   call   at   the   complainant’s   workshop   informing   him   that <\/p>\n
    when she returned from the school she found the safety door of the house in <\/p>\n
    an open condition and another door was bolted from outside.  She opened the <\/p>\n
    door by unbolting the lock and after entering the house, she gave a call to her <\/p>\n
    mother but there was no response.  She noticed that her mother was lying on <\/p>\n
    the floor in the hall and blood was oozing from the mouth of her mother. She <\/p>\n
    accordingly gave the said information to the complainant. The complainant <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    thereafter went to his house and saw rope of sewing machine around the neck <\/p>\n
    of his wife Krishna.  He had also noticed two glasses of water on dining table <\/p>\n
    in   one   tray.   The   complainant   noticed   that   a   VCD   of   Sansui   Company   was <\/p>\n
    missing. He also noticed that two gold bangles from his cup-board were also <\/p>\n
    missing  and the cupboard was found open. The complainant thereafter gave a <\/p>\n
    complaint to the police and his complaint was accordingly recorded at Exh.\n<\/p>\n
    16. Thereafter   supplementary statement of complainant was also recorded.\n<\/p>\n
    According to the complainant, he has stated to the police on 2nd  April, 2004 <\/p>\n
    that accused No.2 Rakesh @ Raju Pandey had been to his workshop and asked <\/p>\n
    for work and he employed him as a helper in his workshop. According to the <\/p>\n
    complainant, accused No.2 told him that his father is serving in Bayer India <\/p>\n
    Company.    The  accused  No.2   had  also  given his residential  address to   the <\/p>\n
    complainant and thereafter accused No.2 started working as a helper in the <\/p>\n
    Complainant’s workshop.  The aforesaid witness has further stated that on 21 st <\/p>\n
    May, 2004, accused No.2 told him that there is marriage of his sister and he <\/p>\n
    requested an advance amount of Rs. 2,000\/- and requested for 10 days leave.\n<\/p>\n
    According   to   the   complainant,   he   gave   Rs.   1,500\/-   to   accused   No.2   and <\/p>\n
    accused No.2 joined his duties on 31st May, 2004. After two days  accused No.<\/p>\n
    2 demanded Rs. 500\/- for his private expense which amount was paid by the <\/p>\n
    complainant to him. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter he had <\/p>\n
    asked accused No.2 to fix curtains at his residence and for that purpose he had <\/p>\n
    taken accused No.2 to his house. His wife was also acquainted with accused <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
    No.2.   On 12th  June, 2004, accused No.2 demanded Rs. 5,000\/-   as advance <\/p>\n
    from the complainant on the ground that his mother is sick and he needed the <\/p>\n
    money for the brain operation of his mother.  He also assured that he would <\/p>\n
    pay back the said amount within ten days. Accordingly, complainant gave him <\/p>\n
    Rs. 5,000\/-.  It is the say of the complainant that thereafter accused No.2 had <\/p>\n
    not  come for work.  The complainant has also further stated that on 21 st June, <\/p>\n
    2004, accused along with his brother had been to his house in his absence.  It <\/p>\n
    is further stated by the complainant that accused No.2 told his wife that she <\/p>\n
    should request the complainant that accused No.2 should get the job in the <\/p>\n
    complainant’s factory.  It is also the say of the complainant that accused No.2 <\/p>\n
    had brought one sweet box from Delhi and he told his wife that he brought <\/p>\n
    the sweet box from Delhi.     The said witness has further stated that on 22 nd <\/p>\n
    June, 2004 in the morning accused No.2 joined his duties and on that day the <\/p>\n
    accused No.2 went to the workshop of the complainant for work. At that time <\/p>\n
    he had  worn a full pant which he used to wear at the time of work. According <\/p>\n
    to the said witness, thereafter the accused had not come back for work.  The <\/p>\n
    said   witness   has   stated   that   his   wife   was   murdered   on   25 th  June,   2004 <\/p>\n
    between 8.30 and 12.30 p.m .  The said witness has further stated that on 14 th <\/p>\n
    July, 2004, when he was present at his workshop he received a telephone call <\/p>\n
    and   as   per   the   telephone   talk   a   person   told   that   he   is   Raju   Pandey   from <\/p>\n
    Punjab. According to the complainant, the person told him on telephone that <\/p>\n
    his   wife   is   already   murdered   and   now   it   will   be   his   son’s   number.   He <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
    accordingly informed the police about the said telephone. It is the say of the <\/p>\n
    said witness that he received the telephone call at 7.30 p.m.  from accused No.<\/p>\n
    2   and   he   had   identified   the   voice.     According   to   the   complainant,   he   had <\/p>\n
    confirmed the fact that the phone was made on his mobile from a PCO near <\/p>\n
    Thane Railway Station. Subsequently he also received two miss calls and on <\/p>\n
    enquiry it was found that the same were received from a STD booth of one <\/p>\n
    Shambu   Gupta,   near   Varanasi   Railway   Station,   although   the   said   Shambu <\/p>\n
    Gupta told the complainant that it is a public phone installed in the booth.\n<\/p>\n
    The said witness has further stated that on 23rd  July, 2004, he received an <\/p>\n
    inland letter at his workshop address which came from Chevar, Sarangpura, <\/p>\n
    Uttar Pradesh and the letter was signed by the nephew of accused No.2.  The <\/p>\n
    complainant opened the inland letter wherein it was found that the letter was <\/p>\n
    signed by the nephew of accused No.2 and as per the said letter accused Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    1   and   2   had   been   to   their   village.       Considering   the   said   circumstances, <\/p>\n
    according to the complainant, he has confirmed the fact that accused No.2 had <\/p>\n
    committed murder of his wife Krishna. According to the said witness, on 15 th <\/p>\n
    January, 2005, police called him in the Police Station for identification of his <\/p>\n
    articles and he was shown one pair of golden bangales and   VCD of Sansui <\/p>\n
    Company   and   the   complainant   identified   the   same.     According   to   the <\/p>\n
    complainant,   he   was   told   by   the   police   that   accused   No.2   had   kept   these <\/p>\n
    articles at the   house of his sister at Sarangpur, U.P. and at the instance of <\/p>\n
    accused   No.2,   the   said   articles   were   seized.     The   said   witness   has   further <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
    stated that he is not maintaining the register of workers in his workshop. The <\/p>\n
    said witness has stated in his evidence that he had not stated before the police <\/p>\n
    at the time of recording his complaint that he had taken accused No.2 at his <\/p>\n
    house for  fixing curtains.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            The   prosecution   also   examined   one   Maruti   Patil   as   Prosecution <\/p>\n
    Witness No.2 who is an employee of A.P. Engineering Company belonging to <\/p>\n
    the   complainant.     The   said   witness   has   stated   that   he   was   serving   in   the <\/p>\n
    workshop along with Abhijit Pore and Raju Pandey. He identified accused No.<\/p>\n
    1 Rajesh Pandey. According to the said witness, accused No.2 was  present on <\/p>\n
    duty on 22nd  June, 2004 and 23rd  June, 2004.   On 24th  June, 2004, accused <\/p>\n
    No.2 was at the workshop for duty. According to the said witness, accused No.<\/p>\n
    2 had been to the house of the complainant once or twice   for personal work <\/p>\n
    but he said that he had not disclosed the said fact in the statement before the <\/p>\n
    police.     The   said   witness   has  further   stated   that  accused   No.2   was  not    a <\/p>\n
    permanent employee in the workshop. According to the said witness, accused <\/p>\n
    No.2  who was present   on 24th   June,  2004  at the workshop, changed  his <\/p>\n
    dress and went for latrine but thereafter he did not return back for work.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            The   prosecution   has   also   examined   one   Nagabai   Sisodiya, <\/p>\n
    Exhibit-29, as PW3.   The said witness  has stated that on 9th January, 2005, <\/p>\n
    he was called for a panchanama at Kapurbavdi Police Station and accused No.<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
    2  was present there.  He made a disclosure statement that he had kept one <\/p>\n
    VCD player and two gold bangles in the house of his sister. The memorandum <\/p>\n
    of   panchanama   was   shown   to   the   said   witness   and   he   identified   the <\/p>\n
    signature.  The said witness has further stated that thereafter he had gone to <\/p>\n
    Uttar Pradesh along with the Police Officer and on 10th   January, 2005, he, <\/p>\n
    along with another pancha and the police  reached Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
    On 11th January, 2005, at 9.00 a.m. they occupied seats in one jeep and all of <\/p>\n
    them got down from the jeep after about two hours drive  and walked about <\/p>\n
    4 to 5 minutes. Thereafter accused No.2 showed the house of his sister. The <\/p>\n
    sister of accused No.2 took out one gunny bag from the loft of her house and <\/p>\n
    produced one VCD and two gold bangles. The police thereafter seized   the <\/p>\n
    said VCD and two gold bangles and prepared seizure panchanama which is at <\/p>\n
    Exhibit-31. The said witness has stated in the cross-examination that he is <\/p>\n
    having   a transport business.   He stated that he cannot say as to   by which <\/p>\n
    train they had gone to U.P. The said witness has stated that he, along with <\/p>\n
    the police officer and accused No.2, proceeded to U.P. without reservation.\n<\/p>\n
    The said witness further stated that they have travelled in a private jeep but <\/p>\n
    he cannot give the number of the said jeep.  The said witness further stated in <\/p>\n
    the cross-examination that they did not meet Sarpanch or Police Patil of the <\/p>\n
    village and the Maharashtra Police did not meet any other police in U.P.  He <\/p>\n
    has further stated that the police had not pasted labels of his signature on <\/p>\n
    Articles 9 and 10 and that it is wrongly mentioned in seizure panchanama <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Exhibit-31 that the labels of signatures of panchas were pasted on Articles 9 <\/p>\n
    and 10.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            21    January, 2010\n                                                               st\n                                                                                \n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
    9.           The prosecution also examined one Pradip Shankar Nikam, who <\/p>\n
    was called as a panch witness on 15th  January, 2005. According to the said <\/p>\n
    witness, accused No.2, Rakesh Pandey, was present in the Police Station and <\/p>\n
    he  made   a  disclosure   statement that he  will  produce  the  knife   which  was <\/p>\n
    thrown by him in the creek at Kalwa which was used by him at the time of <\/p>\n
    commission of crime. According to the said witness, he along with accused <\/p>\n
    No.2 and another panch witness and police staff occupied seats in the jeep <\/p>\n
    and proceeded towards Thane Railway Station. The accused No.2 thereafter <\/p>\n
    had taken all of them near railway track, 200 mtrs. Ahead towards Kalwa side <\/p>\n
    and   accused   No.2   disclosed   that  he   had   thrown  the   knife   in Kalwa   creek.\n<\/p>\n
    There was mud on the spot and there was no road to proceed towards the <\/p>\n
    spot. The knife was not seen there due to mud and water and accordingly <\/p>\n
    police prepared panchanama on that line which is at Exh. 35.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          The prosecution also examined Dr. Shobhana Rohidas Chavan as <\/p>\n
    Prosecution Witness No.5.     The said doctor was attached to Civil Hospital, <\/p>\n
    Thane. The said witness has stated that on 25th June, 2004, dead body of one <\/p>\n
    Krishna Dhananjay Pore was brought for post-mortem and she had conducted <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the post-mortem   on the dead body. Injuries sustained by deceased as per <\/p>\n
    post-mortem were as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “1.  There was ligature mark all around 35 cms. In length,  3
\n             in number on anterior side of neck, breadth of 0.5 cm. With
\n             ecchymosis with thyroid cartilage below.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.   C.L.W. over anterior side of neck on left side 2.5 cms x 0.1 <\/p>\n
             just in line to ligature mark on lower junction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.       abrasion over nose 0.5 x 0.5 cms. with bleeding from
\n             nose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4.           Abrasion on upper lip 0.2 cms. X 0.1 cm. With black
\n             discolouration and swelling of both lips.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5.    Contusion on right shoulder 7 cms. X 2 cms. With black
\n             discolouration, linear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6.  C.L.W. Over left hand 2 cms. X 0.5 cms. On dorsal aspect
\n             in 1st and 2nd web space”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia <\/p>\n
    due to strangulation and accordingly   post-mortem note was issued on that <\/p>\n
    line.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           The prosecution has also examined one Abhijit Pore, son of the <\/p>\n
    deceased.  The said witness has stated that on 25th June, 2004, at about 6.30 <\/p>\n
    a.m. his sister had been to her school and he left the house at 8.15 a.m. for <\/p>\n
    attending the college.  He has stated that on the said date he  was late and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, he did not attend his lectures but he was with his friends.   At 1.30 <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
    p.m.   when he reached to his house, he came to know that his mother was <\/p>\n
    murdered.  The said witness has stated that one VCD of Sansui Company and <\/p>\n
    some gold ornaments had been stolen. He has also stated that one VCR of <\/p>\n
    Hitachi Company was also stolen.   In the cross-examination, the said witness <\/p>\n
    has stated that at the time of incident he was taking education in Standard 11 <\/p>\n
    in Science faculty.   He has also further stated that he was in 12th  Std.   The <\/p>\n
    said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that he had not stated to <\/p>\n
    the police that accused No.2 was working in his father’s workshop and he has <\/p>\n
    stated the said fact to the police one month after the incident.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           The   prosecution   also   examined   by   Ranjana   Maruti   Patil   as <\/p>\n
    Prosecution Witness No.7.   The said witness has stated that her husband is <\/p>\n
    working as a helper in the factory of the complainant Dhayanjay Pore since <\/p>\n
    last five years and that she used to work in the house of the complainant as a <\/p>\n
    maid servant in the year 2000. Subsequently, since 2004   she again started <\/p>\n
    working   in   the   house   of   the   complainant   as   a   maid   servant   at   their   new <\/p>\n
    residence     at   Devdarshan   Society,   Thane.   According   to   the   said   witness, <\/p>\n
    complainant had taken her to his house three to four times along with him for <\/p>\n
    household work. She has stated that since she used to go to the house of <\/p>\n
    complainant for the household work, the watchman of the Society had not <\/p>\n
    obstructed her. The said witness has stated that in the year 2004, her husband <\/p>\n
    was not feeling well and, therefore, he did not attend his work (witness has <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
    not even stated any date in this behalf).  The said witness has further stated <\/p>\n
    that the complainant had sent one person to her house for fetching the key of <\/p>\n
    workshop   from   her   husband   and   she   had   offered   tea   to   that  person.     On <\/p>\n
    enquiry,   her   husband   told   her   that   the   name   of   the   said   person   is     Raju <\/p>\n
    Pandey,   who   is   newly   appointed   in   the   workshop.     According   to   the   said <\/p>\n
    witness, her husband and Raju Pandey had taken tea in her house and her <\/p>\n
    husband     along   with   the   said   Raju   Pandey   had   been  to   the  workshop  for <\/p>\n
    work. The said witness has stated that on 25th June, 2004, at about 9.45 a.m. <\/p>\n
    she had been to the house of the complainant for household work and at that <\/p>\n
    time wife of the complainant was present in the house.  The son and daughter <\/p>\n
    of the complainant had been to their school and college and complainant had <\/p>\n
    been to his workshop.  The said witness has stated that she had cleaned the <\/p>\n
    house and thereafter washed the clothes. At the time when she was cleaning <\/p>\n
    the utencils, wife of complainant was cooking in the kitchen and at that time <\/p>\n
    door bell rang.   The wife of the complainant opened the door and thereafter <\/p>\n
    she   had   taken  two   glasses of  water   in  tray  from  kitchen.  The   wife   of   the <\/p>\n
    complainant thereafter prepared tea and she had taken tea.  At the time when <\/p>\n
    she was going out of the house, she had seen accused Nos. 1 and 2 sitting in <\/p>\n
    the sofa at the hall.  According to the said witness, she had left the house at <\/p>\n
    about   11   a.m.   and   at   that   time   accused   No.2   had   worn   duty   clothes.\n<\/p>\n
    Subsequently,   at   about   2   p.m.   one   person   who   was   the   owner   of   a   shop <\/p>\n
    “chacha” came to her house and asked her as to whether it is true that the <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
    wife of the complainant was murdered. She replied that she   did not know.\n<\/p>\n
    Subsequently on enquiry she came to know that the wife of the complainant <\/p>\n
    was murdered. The said witness has stated that after the death of wife of <\/p>\n
    complainant, she stayed in the house of the complainant for two-three days.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter she went to her village. She came from the village in February, <\/p>\n
    2006 and thereafter her statement was recorded by the police. In the cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination she stated that she has not  disclosed  anything to the police due <\/p>\n
    to fear of police.   In the cross-examination she has also stated that she had <\/p>\n
    not disclosed about the arrival of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the house of the <\/p>\n
    complainant to any of the family members of the complainant nor she had <\/p>\n
    disclosed the said fact to the complainant. She has stated that she had not <\/p>\n
    disclosed the said fact to her husband. She has stated that after  the incident <\/p>\n
    for about one  year she had not disclosed this fact to her husband nor she had <\/p>\n
    disclosed this fact to anyone in the village.  She has stated that her statement <\/p>\n
    was recorded for the first time by the police on 25th March, 2006 and for the <\/p>\n
    first time she disclosed to the police about the arrival of  accused Nos. 1 and 2 <\/p>\n
    in the house of the complainant.  In the cross-examination she has admitted <\/p>\n
    the fact that after the demise of the wife of the complainant, she had not <\/p>\n
    disclosed to any relative of the complainant about the arrival of accused Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    1 and 2  to the house  of the complainant on the day of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
    13.           The   prosecution   has   examined   one   Srirang   Waman   Bhosle   as <\/p>\n
    Prosecution Witness No.8.     He was attached at Kapurbavdi Police Station <\/p>\n
    since   January,   2004   till   12th  August,   2005.     The   said   police   officer   had <\/p>\n
    received the information from Senior P.I. that a murder had taken place at <\/p>\n
    Devdarshan Society and accordingly he, along with police staff, went at the <\/p>\n
    said place.  During investigation, the said witness revealed that accused No. 2 <\/p>\n
    who was working in the factory of the complainant had left the factory of the <\/p>\n
    complainant   prior   to   the   incident   and   thereafter   he   was   not   traced   out.\n<\/p>\n
    Subsequently, one letter was received at the factory of the complainant which <\/p>\n
    letter was handed over to him and it revealed that accused Raju Pandey and <\/p>\n
    Rajesh Pandey are residing at Chevar, Tal. Ajamgad, Post Devgaon, U.P.  and <\/p>\n
    thereafter he had sent one police officer and police staff to U.P. for taking <\/p>\n
    search   of the accused.   According to the said witness, he had also gone to <\/p>\n
    U.P.   along   with   other   police   staff.   The   family   members   of   Rajesh   Pandey <\/p>\n
    disclosed to him that accused Raju Pandey and his brother had been to village <\/p>\n
    Chevar and stayed   there. According to the said witness, Devgaon police of <\/p>\n
    U.P.   had   arrested   accused   Raju   Pandey   in   connection   with   a   NDPS   case.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter   he   went   to   U.P.   and   had   brought   the   accused   under   transfer <\/p>\n
    warrant to Thane.   Prior to that he had arrested Rajesh Pandey, the elder <\/p>\n
    brother of accused  Raju Pandey.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
    14.          The   prosecution   also   examined   Sanjay   Sahebrao   Sable   as <\/p>\n
    Prosecution   Witness   No.9,   who   was  attached   to   Kapurbavdi   Police   Station <\/p>\n
    from  2004     till  December,  2005.    The   said   police  officer   was  deputed   for <\/p>\n
    going to U.P. for investigation.  According to the said witness,  accused No.2 <\/p>\n
    had given disclosure statement that he will produce two gold bangles and one <\/p>\n
    Samsui CD player which were stolen from the house of the complainant. The <\/p>\n
    said witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he had gone along <\/p>\n
    wi8th accused No.2 to village Chevar, Ajamgad,  U.P. by train  but he has not <\/p>\n
    produced any railway tickets on record.  He has not produced any document <\/p>\n
    to show that he along with accused No.2 had gone to Chevar village nor he <\/p>\n
    has claimed any expenses in connection with the visit to U.P.\n<\/p>\n
    15.          The   prosecution   examined   Raghunath   Laxman   Gharte   as <\/p>\n
    Prosecution Witness No. 10, who was attached to Kapurbavdi Police Station <\/p>\n
    at the relevant time as P.I.   The said police officer had carried out further <\/p>\n
    investigation. He prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body at Exh. 8.\n<\/p>\n
    He also prepared spot panchanama of the  place of incident. According to the <\/p>\n
    said witness, he had seized  two glasses and one white handkerchief, leather <\/p>\n
    rope of sewing machine from the spot under the spot panchanama. The said <\/p>\n
    witness has admitted in cross-examination that no report from   finger print <\/p>\n
    expert or dog squad was received by him. The said witness has stated that he <\/p>\n
    has no reason to show as to why he had not filed report of handwriting expert <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   18<\/span><\/p>\n
    and dog squad.  The said witness has stated that he had taken finger prints of <\/p>\n
    both the accused. He denied the suggestion that the finger print experts told <\/p>\n
    him  that the chance print on glass does not match with the finger print of the <\/p>\n
    accused and, therefore, he had not filed the same on record. The said witness <\/p>\n
    has also stated that he had not interrogated Ranjana Patil on 25 th June, 2004 <\/p>\n
    and he cannot assign any reason as to why he had not recorded the statement <\/p>\n
    of Ranjana Patil on the same day or thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    16.           The aforesaid is the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the <\/p>\n
    case against both the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    17.           The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire <\/p>\n
    case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and considering <\/p>\n
    the evidence on record  it cannot be said that the prosecution has established <\/p>\n
    its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for <\/p>\n
    the appellant  submitted that even though  the watchman of the society was <\/p>\n
    present at the relevant time he has not been examined by the prosecution to <\/p>\n
    prove   as   to   whether   he   had   seen   the   accused   entering   the   house   of   the <\/p>\n
    complainant on the relevant day and at the relevant time. Learned counsel <\/p>\n
    submitted that even in his initial statement, the complainant had stated that <\/p>\n
    accused   No.2   was   in   his   employment   and   he   was   not   reporting   for   duty.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of PW 7, on which the <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   19<\/span><\/p>\n
    learned trial Judge has heavily relied upon,  was taken  for the first time after <\/p>\n
    21 months since the incident with a view to prove that she had last seen the <\/p>\n
    accused in the company of the deceased. It is submitted that on the face of it, <\/p>\n
    the evidence of PW 7 is not at all believable and prosecution has tried to <\/p>\n
    prove its case with the help of the said witness with a view to see that the <\/p>\n
    accused were last seen at the house of the complainant. The  learned counsel <\/p>\n
    further submitted that even there is nothing on record that the police visited <\/p>\n
    sister’s   house   of   the   accused   after   taking   any   appropriate   order   from   the <\/p>\n
    higher officers.   It is submitted   that really if he had gone to U.P., naturally <\/p>\n
    they would have at least put on record the tickets for such journey.  Even the <\/p>\n
    panch witnesses   accompanied them did not know in which train they had <\/p>\n
    gone.  It is submitted  that the proceedings are absolutely concocted one and <\/p>\n
    on such evidence, no conviction could have been recorded by the learned trial <\/p>\n
    Judge against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    18.           The learned APP submitted that this is a case of circumstantial <\/p>\n
    evidence. She submitted that it has come in evidence that accused No.2 was <\/p>\n
    in need of money and he used to demand money from the complainant from <\/p>\n
    time to time. The motive of committing   the offence is to commit theft and <\/p>\n
    robbery.     She   submitted   that  after   the   incident  the   accused  No.2   was   not <\/p>\n
    found reporting for his employment and subsequently the theft articles were <\/p>\n
    recovered   at   his     instance   from   the   sister’s   place.   She   submitted   that, <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     20<\/span><\/p>\n
    therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances the prosecution can be said <\/p>\n
    to have established its case  that accused No.2 who had motive to commit the <\/p>\n
    offence committed the said offence with the help of accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    19.           We   have   gone   through   the   evidence   on   record   and   have   also <\/p>\n
    considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
    in the matter.   In order to find out as to whether the evidence on record <\/p>\n
    clearly establish the guilt of the accused in connection with the offence in <\/p>\n
    question, it is required to be noted that the complainant, who is the husband <\/p>\n
    of the deceased, had not stated anything about the accused   in his original <\/p>\n
    complaint. It is further required to be noted that PW 7 is the only witness who <\/p>\n
    has given evidence that she had seen both the accused   at the house of the <\/p>\n
    complainant on the relevant day and on that basis the prosecution has tried to <\/p>\n
    establish   its   case   that   the   accused   were   last   seen   in   the   company   of   the <\/p>\n
    deceased. So far as the evidence of PW 7 is concerned, in our view, it is risky <\/p>\n
    to rely upon the evidence of the said witness firstly because her statement was <\/p>\n
    recorded by the police   after more than 21 months   since   the date of the <\/p>\n
    incident.  It is to be noted that as per the evidence of the said witness, after <\/p>\n
    the incident  she remained at the house of the complainant for three days.  It <\/p>\n
    is surprising to note that even during that period the police had not recorded <\/p>\n
    the  statement of the  said witness.   It is required to  be noted   that in her <\/p>\n
    examination-in-chief, PW 7 has stated that in the year 2004 her husband was <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
    not feeling well and, therefore, he did not attend his work.    According to the <\/p>\n
    said witness, complainant had sent one person  at her house for fetching the <\/p>\n
    key of the workshop from her husband and that she had offered tea to that <\/p>\n
    person and at that time   her husband   replied that the name of that person <\/p>\n
    was   Raju   Pandey   and   that   he     is     newly   appointed   in   the   workshop.\n<\/p>\n
    According  to  her, on the fateful  day i.e. 25th  June,  2004, she  went to  the <\/p>\n
    house of the complainant at about 9.45 a.m. and at that time the deceased <\/p>\n
    was present in the house. At that time   door bell rang and the wife of the <\/p>\n
    complainant opened the door. The said witness has stated that on opening the <\/p>\n
    door, both the accused entered the house. She, however, stated that at the <\/p>\n
    time when he started proceeding out of the house of the complainant,   she <\/p>\n
    had seen accused Nos. 1 and 2  were sitting in the hall on sofa. According to <\/p>\n
    the said witness, she had left the house of the complainant at about 11.00 <\/p>\n
    a.m. and at that time  the accused were sitting on the sofa.  It is difficult to <\/p>\n
    believe  that both   the   accused   continued  to   sit  in  the   house   for  about  one <\/p>\n
    hour.   It is interesting to note that the said witness has stated that accused <\/p>\n
    No.2 had worn duty clothes. As against that, the complainant in his evidence <\/p>\n
    has   clearly   stated   that   no   uniform   was   provided   to   workers   because   his <\/p>\n
    workshop was small.  PW 1  has stated as under in his examination-in-chief.\n<\/p>\n
             ” One Maruti Patil, one Abhijit Pore and Rakesh Pande used
\n             to work in my workshop. Duty hours of these workers were
\n             from   8.30   a.m.   To   5   p.m.     Above   mentioned   workers   also
\n             used to come to my house for doing my domestic work. I had
\n             not provided any uniform to workers because my workshop
\n             was small”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   22<\/span><\/p>\n
    20.         The investigating officer has also stated in his evidence that he is <\/p>\n
    unable to give any reason as to why the statement   of PW 7 was not taken at <\/p>\n
    the relevant time. It is required to be noted that as per the say of PW 7, she <\/p>\n
    stayed  at the residence of the complainant for about three days   after the <\/p>\n
    aforesaid incident.  Still she had not disclosed about the presence of  accused <\/p>\n
    to anyone nor even to the complainant.  It is also pertinent to point out that <\/p>\n
    for more than 21 months, the police never bothered to record her statement <\/p>\n
    in any manner.   As pointed out earlier, in her evidence she has stated that <\/p>\n
    accused No.2 had worn duty clothes, though the complainant has stated that <\/p>\n
    no such clothes were ever given to his workers.\n<\/p>\n
    21.         It   is   amply   clear   that   only   with   a   view   to   prove   the   case   of <\/p>\n
    circumstantial   evidence   that   this   witness   has   been     examined   after <\/p>\n
    considerable time of the incident and that the statement was also taken after <\/p>\n
    considerable time after about 21 months only with a  view  to prove that the <\/p>\n
    accused were present in the company of the deceased at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
    The said witness has stated that her statement was recorded by the police for <\/p>\n
    the first time on 25th March, 2006  about the arrival of accused Nos. 1 and 2 <\/p>\n
    at the  house  of the  complainant.   The  said  witness has  also  stated in her <\/p>\n
    evidence as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     23<\/span><\/p>\n
            “During my stay in the house of Dhananjay Pore, after demise
\n            of   his   wife,   I   had   not   disclosed   any   relative   of   Dhananjay
\n            Pore about the arrival of accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the house of
\n            Dhananjay Pore on the day of incident.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    22.           Considering the aforesaid aspect,   in our view, it is risky to rely <\/p>\n
    upon   the   evidence   of   this   witness   for   coming   to   the   conclusion   that   the <\/p>\n
    accused were last seen in the company of the deceased on the relevant day.\n<\/p>\n
    The conduct  of the said witness is absolutely unnatural as if she had seen the <\/p>\n
    accused at the relevant time at the house just before the alleged incident. It is <\/p>\n
    quite natural that at least she should have disclosed this fact to her husband <\/p>\n
    or even to the complainant or to the children of the complainant as she has <\/p>\n
    stayed   for   about   three   days   at   the   house   of   the   complainant   after   the <\/p>\n
    aforesaid incident.  The concerned police officer has also clearly stated that he <\/p>\n
    is not in a position to point out as to why the statement of PW 7 was not <\/p>\n
    recorded immediately. The evidence of the said witness, therefore, cannot be <\/p>\n
    considered at all for the aforesaid reasons which we have pointed out above.\n<\/p>\n
    23.           So   far   as   the   evidence   of   the   complainant   is   concerned,   it   is <\/p>\n
    required to be noted that even initially in his original complaint, he had not <\/p>\n
    expressed any doubt regarding accused Nos. 1 and 2 in any manner.   If really <\/p>\n
    accused No.2 was missing from the place of incident immediately, the natural <\/p>\n
    conduct of the complainant in such cases would be to disclose the name of the <\/p>\n
    servant or employees as in a case of theft or robbery normally the persons <\/p>\n
    who are employed as servants,   the first doubt can always go against such <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 24<\/span><\/p>\n
    servants  or   employees.  The   complainant  has stated   nothing   in  his  original <\/p>\n
    complaint   about   accused   Nos.1   and   2   in   any   manner.     According   to   the <\/p>\n
    complainant, when he received a letter after few days he came to know that <\/p>\n
    the accused are in UP. The letter is not even exhibited on record  and we have <\/p>\n
    our own doubt about receipt of such letter by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
    24.          The son of the deceased in his examination in chief  stated that he <\/p>\n
    had not attended the college   on the fateful day as he was late but he was <\/p>\n
    with his friends.  He has stated that one VCD of Samsui Company and some <\/p>\n
    golden ornaments were stolen.  Over and above the same, he has stated that <\/p>\n
    one VCR of Hitachi company was also stolen away.\n<\/p>\n
    25.          In   connection   with   the   recovery   panchanama,   it   also   creates   a <\/p>\n
    doubt about its genuineness. Even the panchas as well as the police officer <\/p>\n
    who had accompanied the panchas at the village of the sister of accused No.2 <\/p>\n
    could not give any particulars as to which   train they had travelled and no <\/p>\n
    tickets  had   been   produced   on  record.   Not  only  that,   the   concerned   police <\/p>\n
    officer   had   not   even   claimed   the   travelling   allowance   and   the   dearness <\/p>\n
    allowance for such journey.   If the motive for committing the offence is to <\/p>\n
    commit theft, it is difficult to believe that the accused will keep the   gold <\/p>\n
    ornaments and VCD for more than six months.  It is required to be noted that <\/p>\n
    accused  No.2  was arrested  after about six months   and accused  No.1 was <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                            25<\/span><\/p>\n
    arrested after  more  than four  months from the date of incident.   We find <\/p>\n
    substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that if <\/p>\n
    really accused No.2 was in need of money, he would have taken  cash which <\/p>\n
    was found intact in the cupboard  at the residence of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
    26.         PW 10 in his evidence has stated that even though finger prints <\/p>\n
    had taken, no finger print report was produced on record for which he is not <\/p>\n
    in a position to give any explanation. As pointed out earlier,  the complainant <\/p>\n
    has stated in his evidence that he had not given any uniform to his workers as <\/p>\n
    against that PW 7 stated that accused No9.2 was in uniform at the time when <\/p>\n
    he came at the house of the complainant on the relevant day. It is surprising <\/p>\n
    to note that statement of PW 7, servant of complainant, was not recorded <\/p>\n
    immediately after the incident, as normally in the case of theft the statement <\/p>\n
    of servant  in the house is usually taken to eliminate  the doubt. It is required <\/p>\n
    to be noted that even though as per the prosecution case, a security guard <\/p>\n
    was also there at the residential premises of the deceased.   The prosecution <\/p>\n
    has  not taken care to even examine the said security guard. If his statement <\/p>\n
    was recorded, more light would have thrown as to whether really accused <\/p>\n
    Nos. 1 and 2 entered the house of the complainant on the relevant day.   The <\/p>\n
    most important person who was present at the relevant place has not been <\/p>\n
    examined by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    26<\/span><\/p>\n
    27.           The learned trial Judge has heavily relied on the evidence of PW <\/p>\n
    7.  In our view, the evidence of PW 7 is highly improbable in view of the fact <\/p>\n
    that as for more than one year  she had not stated anything to her husband or <\/p>\n
    to her relatives that on the fateful day accused Nos. 1 and 2 had entered the <\/p>\n
    house of the complainant.  It is risky to rely upon the evidence of PW 7 for the <\/p>\n
    purpose of   convicting the accused   and for coming to the conclusion that <\/p>\n
    they were last seen in the company of the deceased on the relevant day.   The <\/p>\n
    aforesaid aspect, in our view, clearly suggests that on the basis of evidence <\/p>\n
    on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case against <\/p>\n
    the accused beyond reasonable doubt.  The son of the complainant has stated <\/p>\n
    that even VCR was also missing from the house.  As against that, as per the <\/p>\n
    evidence led by the prosecution, only   VCD of the Samsui company and some <\/p>\n
    gold ornaments were found   missing. According to the panch witnesses, the <\/p>\n
    accused had taken the panch witnesses for the purpose of recovering the knife <\/p>\n
    which could not be found and even as per the medical   evidence, no knife <\/p>\n
    injury was found  as the cause of the death is asphyxia due to strangulation.\n<\/p>\n
    Since the prosecution has not led any satisfactory evidence to establish   the <\/p>\n
    guilt of the accused and in view of the evidence which we have discussed <\/p>\n
    above,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   prosecution   has   proved   its   case   beyond <\/p>\n
    reasonable doubt against the appellants.  In our view, considering the totality <\/p>\n
    of the evidence on record, it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed <\/p>\n
    to make out its case against the appellants.  Simply because accused No.2 had <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     27<\/span><\/p>\n
    not attended his duties itself cannot be a circumstance by which we can come <\/p>\n
    to the conclusion that   accused No.2 along with accused No.1 went to the <\/p>\n
    house of the deceased on the relevant day for committing theft.\n<\/p>\n
    28.           The prosecution has failed to examine an important witness who <\/p>\n
    could   have   seen   the   presence   of   the   accused   at   the   relevant   day   i.e.   the <\/p>\n
    security guard who was in  charge of the society where complainant resides.\n<\/p>\n
    It is required to be noted that as per the evidence of the complainant, accused <\/p>\n
    No.2   was   employed   by   him     after   ascertaining   from   him   his   address   and <\/p>\n
    according to the complainant, accused No.2 also informed him that his father <\/p>\n
    was serving in Bayer India Company at Thane. No attempts were made to <\/p>\n
    record the statement of the father of accused No.2 in this behalf at any point <\/p>\n
    of time.\n<\/p>\n
    29.           The   learned APP has relied upon the decision of the Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court in the case of Manivel and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> reported in <\/p>\n
    (2008). In the said case the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of the <\/p>\n
    appellants under Section 302 of the IPC on the basis of last seen theory.  In <\/p>\n
    the  instant case, however, there is no evidence  worth the name  regarding <\/p>\n
    proving  the  case of  last seen theory.  As pointed  out  earlier,  no  conviction <\/p>\n
    against the appellants can be recorded so far as the facts of the present case <\/p>\n
    are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  28<\/span><\/p>\n
    30.          Considering   the   evidence   as  a   whole,   in   our   view,   it  creates  a <\/p>\n
    doubt as to whether the accused had gone to the house of the complainant on <\/p>\n
    the  relevant day at the  relevant time  for the purpose  of committing theft.\n<\/p>\n
    Even otherwise, it is not probable that a person will commit a robbery on a <\/p>\n
    broad day light and will sit on the  sofa for a considerable time. In our view, <\/p>\n
    the prosecution has failed to prove its case   against the appellants beyond <\/p>\n
    reasonable doubt. As stated earlier, the circumstances on the record do not <\/p>\n
    establish that the accused have committed the aforesaid act on the relevant <\/p>\n
    day.  After analysing the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the <\/p>\n
    prosecution has failed to make out its case against both the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    31.          We   accordingly   allow   this   appeal   and   set   aside   the   order   of <\/p>\n
    conviction   and   sentence   recorded   by   the   learned   IIIrd   Ad-hoc   Additional <\/p>\n
    Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 161 of 2005, dated 12 th  May, <\/p>\n
    2006. Both the appellants-accused are   set at liberty unless their presence is <\/p>\n
    required in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                   (R.G.KETKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    29<\/span><\/p>\n
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\n                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
\n                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2006<\/p>\n
    1. Rajesh Ramanand Pandey, age 30 years,                                 )
\n        Occ. Labourer, residing at Ganeshwadi,                               )<\/p>\n
        Near Shivsena Shakha, Manorama Nagar, Thane.                         )<\/p>\n
    2. Rakesh  @ Raju Ramanand Pandey, age 25 years,                         )
\n        Occ. Labourer, residing at Gupta Chawl, Behind                       )<\/p>\n
        Manorama Nagar Bus Stop, Thane.                                      )<\/p>\n
    (presently in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur)                         )…Appellants
\n                                                                              (Orig. Accused
\n                                                                                Nos. 1 and 2)<\/p>\n
                         versus<\/p>\n
    The State of Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             …Respondents<\/p>\n
    Mrs. A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    CORAM:  P.B.MAJMUDAR &
\n                                                             R.G.KETKAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    DATED:  20 & 21
\n                                                                       January, 2010
\n                                                                    st
\n                                                                                    .\n<\/p>\n
    P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                For  the reasons  separately recorded  in the  judgment,  the  Court
\n    passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
             “We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of
\n             conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IIIrd Ad-hoc
\n             Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 161
\n             of 2005, dated 12th  May, 2006. Both the appellants-accused
\n             are     set   at   liberty   unless   their   presence   is   required   in
\n             connection with any other case”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                     (R.G.KETKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>
\n            30<\/span><\/p>\n
                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:57 :::<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2006 1. Rajesh Ramanand Pandey, age 30 years, ) Occ. Labourer, residing at Ganeshwadi, ) Near […]<\/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-42580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-10T12:07:24+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=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-10T12:07:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7461,\"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\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-10T12:07:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-10T12:07:24+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":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-10T12:07:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010"},"wordCount":7461,"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\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010","name":"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-10T12:07:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ramanand-pandey-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Ramanand Pandey vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42580","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=42580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}