{"id":44741,"date":"2011-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-08T01:18:59","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T19:48:59","slug":"anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, U. D. Salvi<\/div>\n
                                                                                                   1                                          cr-apeal-775-10\n\n\n     Jdk\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                                                  \n                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n                                                       CRI. APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                   \n                                 1. Anant Nathu Mankar, Age 45 years ]\n                                 2. Sou.Alka Anant Mankar, Age 42 yrs. ]\n                                 3. Pandurang Keshav Jhunjarrao         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                  \n                                    Age 55 years,                       ]\n                                    All residents of Mulshi,            ]\n                                    Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad       ]\n                                    At present in District Jail, Alibag ]...Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                              \n                                               V\/s.                  \n                            State of Maharashtra                                                         ]\n                            (Pali P.St. Dist.Raigad CR No. 13\/2008)                                      ]..Respondent\n                                                                    \n                                                          ....\n                            Mr. C.G.Gavnekar with Mr. Suhas Deokar with Mr. G.S.Hiranandani and\n                            Mr. A.C.Gavnekar Advocates for the Appellants\n                                  \n\n                            Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.\n                               \n\n\n\n                                                                                      ....\n\n                                                                  CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND\n                                                                          U.D.SALVI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                  RESERVED ON : JANUARY 25, 2011
\n                                                                  DECLARED ON : MARCH   07, 2011<\/p>\n
                            JUDGMENT: [ PER U.D.SALVI, J.]:\n<\/p>\n
                            1                  This appeal assails the judgment and order of the Additional<\/p>\n
                            Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad convicting the appellants of<\/p>\n
                            the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506, 504 all read with<\/p>\n
                            Section 34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2008 on 29.9.2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                                    2                                          cr-apeal-775-10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                                                  \n                            2                  Impugned judgment dealing with                                     the incident of throwing\n\n<\/pre>\n
                            burning kerosene lamp by the appellant-accused no.2 Alka on the<\/p>\n
                            complainant Rakesh, 18 years student residing at village Mulshi, Taluka<\/p>\n
                            Sudhagad preceded by hurling of abuses and insults by the appellants-\n<\/p>\n
                            accused in the evening of Holi day i.e. 18.3.2008 gave rise to the present<\/p>\n
                            case.          As a result of the said acts of the appellants-accused, the<\/p>\n
                            prosecution contended, the terricot shirt of the victim Rakesh caught fire<\/p>\n
                            and consequently the victim sustained 25 to 30% burn injuries on the<\/p>\n
                            chest, abdomen and hands. At the Primary Health Centre situated at<\/p>\n
                            Jambool Pada, where the victim was initially removed, the police recorded<\/p>\n
                            the statement of the victim, and following thereto, registered a crime at<\/p>\n
                            C.R.No. 13 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504,<\/p>\n
                            506 all read with Section 34 of I.P.C. at Pali Police Station, Sudhagad,<\/p>\n
                            Raigad against the appellants-accused. Soon thereafter, the incriminating<\/p>\n
                            articles were recovered from the scene of offence and the observations<\/p>\n
                            made there were recorded in form of a scene of offence panchnama. A<\/p>\n
                            map of the spot was drawn and the incriminating articles were referred to<\/p>\n
                            the Chemical Analyser for further forensic investigations. On completion<\/p>\n
                            of the investigation, the charge sheet was duly lodged in the Court of<\/p>\n
                            Judicial Magistrate F.C. Pali. In due course, the case was committed to<\/p>\n
                            the Court of Sessions at Mangaon and the charge under Sections 307,<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                                    3                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            504, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was framed on 23.6.2009 at Exh.\n<\/p>\n
                            9. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
                            3                  To prove the case, the prosecution examined the complainant\/<\/p>\n
                            victim-PW-1 Rakesh Mankar; PW-2- Dr. Dhananjay Oswal, PW-3-\n<\/p>\n
                            Shankar Sable, PW-4- Mahesh Mankar, Eye-witness PW-5-Ashwini<\/p>\n
                            Mankar, PW-6 Dr. Vikram More, Medical Officer, Kamal Nursing Home,<\/p>\n
                            Pune and PW-7-Subhash Tarte- Investigating Officer and further adduced<\/p>\n
                            in evidence               the complaint at Exh. 19, medical certificate issued by<\/p>\n
                            Rajendra Polyclinic at Exh. 21, sketch of the scene of offence at Exh.23,<\/p>\n
                            certificate issued by Kamal Nursing Home at Exh.29, letter to Tahasildar<\/p>\n
                            at Exh. 36 and MLC certificate at Exh. 44.\n<\/p>\n
                            4                  The appellant-accused responded to their examination under<\/p>\n
                            Section 313 of Cr. P.C. with denials. The impugned judgment reveals that<\/p>\n
                            the learned trial judge with the aid of the medical evidence and forensic<\/p>\n
                            investigation done in the case proceeded to dismiss the defence of the<\/p>\n
                            accused that the burn injuries sustained by the victim                                                    PW-1 Rakesh<\/p>\n
                            Mankar were accidentally caused as a result of falling of burning bundle<\/p>\n
                            of grass on his chest during Holi festivities and wholeheartedly believed<\/p>\n
                            the prosecution witnesses to hold the appellant-accused guilty                                                           on all<\/p>\n
                            counts.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                                    4                                          cr-apeal-775-10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                                                  \n                            5                  Mr. Gavnekar, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused\n\n<\/pre>\n
                            had no quarrel with the medical evidence. However, he submitted that<\/p>\n
                            the oral testimonies even if believed as they are in context with the<\/p>\n
                            circumstantial evidence on record, would not lead to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
                            all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to commit the<\/p>\n
                            murder, injured the victim PW-1 Rakesh Mankar. He pointed out from the<\/p>\n
                            evidence of the victim and the eye witness that there was no overt act<\/p>\n
                            committed by the appellant-accused no.1- Anant Mankar and accused<\/p>\n
                            no.3-Pandurang Jhunjarrao at or after the time of throwing of the burning<\/p>\n
                            chimney on the body of the victim Rakesh Mankar. According to him the<\/p>\n
                            acts alleged were individual acts which were spontaneous acts without<\/p>\n
                            there being any common concert between them.                                                        At the most, he<\/p>\n
                            submitted, the evidence could possibly show the culpability of the<\/p>\n
                            appellant accused no.2 Alka Mankar in the crime punishable under<\/p>\n
                            Section 324 of IPC and nothing more.\n<\/p>\n
                            6                  Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned APP argued that the evidence of<\/p>\n
                            eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence clearly pointed out<\/p>\n
                            the employment of dangerous weapon like burning chimney to cause<\/p>\n
                            injuries to the victim which could have proved fatal if there was no proper<\/p>\n
                            medical intervention. She relied upon the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Vikram<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                                    5                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            More, Medical Officer, Kamal Nursing Home, who testified in response to<\/p>\n
                            the court question that if the burn patient is not properly attended, there is<\/p>\n
                            every possibility of septicemia, which opens up possibility of death in its<\/p>\n
                            aggravated condition. She further pointed out from the medical evidence<\/p>\n
                            that the injuries were caused                            to chest and abdomen which encase the<\/p>\n
                            vital organs; and this fact, in her view, was sufficient to spell out the<\/p>\n
                            intention of the appellant-accused no.2 Alka Mankar who had thrown the<\/p>\n
                            burning chimney on the victim Rakesh Mankar. According to Mrs.<\/p>\n
                            Deshmukh, the learned APP, the evidence of eye witnesses was sufficient<\/p>\n
                            to rope in all the accused in the crime.\n<\/p>\n
                            7                  Rival submissions called for survey of the prosecution<\/p>\n
                            evidence, particularly the eye witnesses account. PW-1 Rakesh Mankar<\/p>\n
                            deposed that while they were playing around the Holi fire, the appellant-\n<\/p>\n
                            accused no.1 Anant Mankar and his wife appellant-accused no.2 Alka<\/p>\n
                            Mankar started giving abuses to them, and therefore, he, his brother Vijay<\/p>\n
                            and two friends went to the house of Anant Mankar situate at 100 to 120<\/p>\n
                            feet from the Holi fire to inquire as to why the abuses were being given.\n<\/p>\n
                            He further deposed that when they went to the house of Anant Mankar,<\/p>\n
                            the appellant-accused no.1 Anant and the appellant-accused no.3<\/p>\n
                            Pandurang Jhunjarrao and Subhash Mankar (acquitted accused no.4)<\/p>\n
                            came out of the house of Anant Mankar and, thereafter, the appellant-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                                    6                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            accused no.3 Pandurang Jhunjarrao uttered the words ” Ya Bhadavyala<\/p>\n
                            jasti maj ala ahe hach jasti shivya deto yache angat jasti masti ali yala<\/p>\n
                            dhara and mara” .\n<\/p>\n
                            8                  During the incident thereafter, the P.W. 1 Rakesh deposed, the<\/p>\n
                            appellant-accused no.2 Alka Mankar threw burning lamp (chimney)<\/p>\n
                            towards           him and chimney hit his chest setting his shirt on fire and<\/p>\n
                            causing injuries to his chest.\n<\/p>\n
                            9                  The evidence of P.W. 1 Rakesh further reveals that he was<\/p>\n
                            initially removed to the hospital of P.W.2 Dr. Oswal at Parali, Taluka Pali<\/p>\n
                            Sudhagad where he was examined and first aid was given. Evidence of<\/p>\n
                            P.W.2 Dr. Oswal confirms this fact. He disclosed in his testimony that<\/p>\n
                            P.W.1 Rakesh the patient was fully conscious when he was brought to his<\/p>\n
                            polyclinic around 8.00 p.m. on 18.3.2008 and could narrate history of<\/p>\n
                            sustaining burn injuries as a result of throwing a burning lamp of kerosene<\/p>\n
                            on his person. He referred to the medical certificate Exhibit-21 issued by<\/p>\n
                            him in that regard.                    His cross-examination reveals no infirmities in his<\/p>\n
                            evidence except the reference to a possibility of occurrence of similar<\/p>\n
                            burn injuries in case of bundle of burning grass falling on the chest of<\/p>\n
                            victim.        However, no oral testimony reveals or suggests possibility of<\/p>\n
                            occurrence of any such incident which could have resulted in such burn<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                                    7                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            injuries. Cross-examination of P.W.1 Rakesh reveals no contradictions or<\/p>\n
                            omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 Rakesh and as such there is no<\/p>\n
                            reason why P.W.1 Rakesh need not be believed.\n<\/p>\n
                            10                 P.W.4 Mahesh Mankar corroborated the P.W.1 Rakesh. He<\/p>\n
                            deposed that Alka objected to raising of the shouts and started giving<\/p>\n
                            abuses; and when Rakesh went to her for seeking her explanation for<\/p>\n
                            giving abuses, the                     husband of Alka-the accused no.1 Anant uttered<\/p>\n
                            ” Salya Bhadvya Madarchod” and started scuffle with Rakesh. According<\/p>\n
                            to him, Subhash and Pandurang who were also present there uttered the<\/p>\n
                            words ” Dhara Bhadvyala Aani Mara” ; and thereafter Alka threw burning<\/p>\n
                            kerosene lamp article-1 towards Rakesh.                                       His cross-examination reveals<\/p>\n
                            that the story of scuffle narrated by him, was an improvement in his<\/p>\n
                            testimony. The fact, however, remains that the appellant-accused no.1<\/p>\n
                            Anant and accused no.3 Pandurang did give abuses to the victim Rakesh.\n<\/p>\n
                            11                 Evidence of P.W. 5 Ashwini Mankar reveals more or less;\n<\/p>\n
                            similar story of the incident.                           Pertinently, she referred to the abusive<\/p>\n
                            utterances made by the appellant-accused no.3 Pandurang at the time of<\/p>\n
                            the incident. Story of the scuffle between Anant and Rakesh appearing in<\/p>\n
                            her testimony is shown in her cross-examination as an improvement in<\/p>\n
                            her testimony.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                                    8                                          cr-apeal-775-10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                                                  \n                            12                 P.W. 6 Dr. Vikram More, Medical Officer attached to Kamal\n\n<\/pre>\n
                            Nursing Home, Pune where the victim Rakesh was treated as indoor<\/p>\n
                            patient between 19.3.2008 and 1.4.2008, revealed that Rakesh had<\/p>\n
                            sustained 25 to 30% superficial to deep burn injuries on chest and throat<\/p>\n
                            and injuries were fatal. In his cross-examination, he clarified that burn<\/p>\n
                            injuries are fatal and dangerous to life in case the injuries get infected<\/p>\n
                            and develop into septicemia, particularly in case the patient is not properly<\/p>\n
                            attended to.              However, nowhere in his testimony, it is revealed that the<\/p>\n
                            patient had developed septicemia as a result of improper medical care.\n<\/p>\n
                            Thus, it can be seen that injuries per se were not fatal, though they did<\/p>\n
                            have potential to endanger human life.                                        Total view presented by the<\/p>\n
                            evidence presents two credible facts: (1) use of abusive language by the<\/p>\n
                            appellant-accused no.1 Anant and accused no.3 Pandurang and (2)<\/p>\n
                            throwing of burning kerosene lamp (chimney) by the appellant-accused<\/p>\n
                            no.2 Alka on the person of the victim Rakesh. Significantly, it can also be<\/p>\n
                            seen that there is no credible evidence of the fact that there was any<\/p>\n
                            scuffle or physical violence either before or after throwing of burning<\/p>\n
                            kerosene lamp on the person of the victim Rakesh.                                                      Act of throwing<\/p>\n
                            burning kerosene lamp can also very well be seen as out burst of anger<\/p>\n
                            without there being any intention, much less; common intention to cause<\/p>\n
                            death of the victim Rakesh.                             Pertinently, the incident occurred around<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                                    9                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            evening time in the village where kerosene lamps are lit to light the<\/p>\n
                            household.              Pertinently, the evidence does not show that any special<\/p>\n
                            preparation was made by any of the accused to perpetrate crime in the<\/p>\n
                            present case.                 Evidently, it appears that the accused no.2 Alka out of<\/p>\n
                            rage threw what was handy then on the person of the victim Rakesh.\n<\/p>\n
                            Obviously, therefore, the accused did not share any common intention to<\/p>\n
                            do any bodily harm capable of causing death of the victim P.W.1 Rakesh.\n<\/p>\n
                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               Nonetheless, the accused no.2 Alka did have a knowledge that<\/p>\n
                            by throwing burning lamp (chimney) on the person of the victim P.W.1<\/p>\n
                            Rakesh, she was likely to cause hurt to him and that too a hurt which<\/p>\n
                            would endanger his life. Learned counsel Mr. Gavnekar with reference to<\/p>\n
                            M.L.C. Certificate Exh. 44 submitted that the injuries caused were simple<\/p>\n
                            and as such, it cannot be said that the victim sustained grievous hurt.\n<\/p>\n
                            However, medical evidence as disclosed above, reveals that the injuries<\/p>\n
                            were potentially dangerous to life and were caused by means of fire.\n<\/p>\n
                            14                 Though, P.W.3 Shankar Sable, Pancha to the scene of offence<\/p>\n
                            panchnama Exh. 23 did lip service to the prosecution by merely deposing<\/p>\n
                            that he signed the panchnama when called by the police, the undisputed<\/p>\n
                            sketch of the scene of offence Exh. 23 drawn by the Circle Officer,<\/p>\n
                            Jambhul Pada, Taluka Sudhagad reveals certain important features of the<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                                    10                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            case. It can very well be gathered from the sketch Exh. 23 that the site of<\/p>\n
                            occurrence of the crime i.e. the location of the victim at the material time<\/p>\n
                            was across a road abutting the house of the appellant-accused Alka<\/p>\n
                            Mankar.           Evidence of P.W.1 Rakesh speaks of the appellant-accused<\/p>\n
                            no.3 Pandurang coming out of the house of the appellants-accused nos.1<\/p>\n
                            and 2 followed by throwing burning kerosene lamp by appellant-accused<\/p>\n
                            no.2 Alka on his person. His evidence further discloses that the victim<\/p>\n
                            accompanied by others went towards the house of Anant which had<\/p>\n
                            opening to the concrete road. He also revealed in his cross-examination<\/p>\n
                            that besides the road there is a `Padvi’ (outer portion of the house<\/p>\n
                            admeasuring 3 x 10 feet). It is not clear from the evidence whether Alka<\/p>\n
                            stepped out of the house to launch assault on the victim. Normally, a<\/p>\n
                            place for small kerosene lamp is not outside the house but invariably<\/p>\n
                            within the house.                  Evidently, therefore, the burning lamp was thrown at<\/p>\n
                            the victim from the portion abutting the road i.e. `Padvi’ of the house of the<\/p>\n
                            accused Alka. If that be so, Alka intended to cause bodily injury to the<\/p>\n
                            complainant Rakesh and nothing more. As revealed from the discussion<\/p>\n
                            herein before, the co-accused did not share this intention of Alka. In our<\/p>\n
                            considered opinion, Alka voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant<\/p>\n
                            Rakesh by fire- a crime punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. 1860 and<\/p>\n
                            the co-accused appellant nos. 1 and 3 did not share any culpability with<\/p>\n
                            accused no.2 Alka as regards the bodily injury sustained by the victim.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                                    11                                          cr-apeal-775-10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                                                 \n                            15                 There is no evidence of the fact that complainant Rakesh was\n\n<\/pre>\n
                            threatened by the accused no.2 Alka or that the abusive utterances were<\/p>\n
                            made by the appellant-accused no.2 Alka. No culpability as regards the<\/p>\n
                            commission of the crime under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. by the<\/p>\n
                            appellant-accused no.2 Alka can be fastened on her.\n<\/p>\n
                            16                 In the ultimate analysis, the appeal needs to be partly allowed<\/p>\n
                            and the order passed by the trial Court suitably modified.\n<\/p>\n
                            17                 The        appellants-accused                    are       acquitted            of     the       offences<\/p>\n
                            punishable under Sections 307                                read with Section 34 of I.P.C.                                 The<\/p>\n
                            appellant-accused no.2 Alka is acquitted of the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
                            Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 1860. The appellant-\n<\/p>\n
                            accused no.2 Alka is convicted of the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
                            326 of I.P.C., 1860 and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
                            for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in default to<\/p>\n
                            undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
                            Conviction of the                     appellant-accused no.1 Anant and accused no.3<\/p>\n
                            Pandurang under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. 1860 is maintained. The<\/p>\n
                            period of detention undergone by the appellant-accused during the<\/p>\n
                            investigation, inquiry or trial in the present case, including the<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                                    12                                          cr-apeal-775-10<\/p>\n
                            imprisonment undergone till this date, shall be set off against the term of<\/p>\n
                            imprisonment, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine<\/p>\n
                            imposed.             An amount of Rs. 40,000\/- out of the fine recovered, shall be<\/p>\n
                            paid to the victim P.W.1 Rakesh Vilas Mankar as compensation for injury<\/p>\n
                            caused as a result of crime in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
                            18                 Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                              \n                                                                    \n                                                                   \n                            [ U.D.SALVI, J.]                                                                      [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]\n                                 \n                              \n      \n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:02:45 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, U. D. Salvi 1 cr-apeal-775-10 Jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2010 1. Anant Nathu Mankar, Age 45 years ] 2. Sou.Alka Anant Mankar, Age 42 yrs. […]<\/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-44741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 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\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-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=\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T19:48:59+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T19:48:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2400,\"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\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T19:48:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 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":"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 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\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T19:48:59+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T19:48:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"},"wordCount":2400,"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\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","name":"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T19:48:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-nathu-mankar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anant Nathu Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 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\/44741","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=44741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}