{"id":44896,"date":"2008-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-08T03:05:03","modified_gmt":"2019-03-07T21:35:03","slug":"yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: D Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: S. B. Sinha, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  744 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nYOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS. B. SINHA & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  744           OF 2008
\nArising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5514 of 2007
\nWITH
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 745         OF 2008
\n[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5515 of 2007]<\/p>\n
D.K. JAIN, J.:\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThese two appeals are directed against orders dated 23rd
\nJune, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 passed by the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision
\nApplication No. 288 of 2005 and in Criminal Writ Petition
\nNo.1884 of 2006 respectively.  By the first order, the High
\nCourt has repelled the challenge made to order dated 23rd
\nMarch, 2005, in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004, whereby the
\nSessions Judge, Satara had affirmed the order passed by the
\nJuvenile Justice Board, rejecting the application filed by the
\nappellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) for discharge.  By the
\nlatter order, another Single Judge of the High Court has
\ndismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, seeking
\nquashing of order dated 23rd March, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe facts giving rise to the present appeals lie in a
\nnarrow compass and centre around a criminal conspiracy,
\nallegedly hatched by the family members of the appellant to
\nmurder the deceased, Kunal.  The case of the prosecution as
\nper the charge-sheet is that in the month of March 1999,
\ndeceased Kunal organised an entertainment show, sponsored
\nby the father of the appellant.  During the event, the deceased
\nwas introduced to the sister of the appellant, Hema. The
\nacquaintance blossomed into love between the two.  Fearing
\nthat there may be opposition to their close relationship from
\ntheir family members, they eloped and got married on 29th
\nMay, 2000.  Appellant’s father lodged a complaint alleging that
\nthe deceased had kidnapped his daughter. The complainant,
\nnamely, the father of the deceased, also reported the matter to
\nthe Pune Police.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tSometime in June, 2000, Kunal contacted his father and
\ninformed him that he was at Gauhati with Hema.  Thereupon,
\nthe complainant and his wife brought Kunal and Hema to
\nMumbai.  On persuasion by the complainant and his wife,
\nHema agreed to return and stay with her parents and the
\nmarriage between Kunal and Hema is stated to have been
\nannulled.  In December, the complainant filed complaints with
\nthe S.P., Satara and the Additional Commissioner of Police,
\nPune against the father of the appellant alleging that he had
\nabused him over the telephone.  The complainant also alleged
\nthat even thereafter, threatening calls were made by the
\nappellant, his sister, Hema and father.  However, the things
\nseem to have settled down with the intervention of the
\nAdvocate of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThereafter, Kunal was engaged to another girl and the
\nwedding was scheduled for 30th November, 2001.  On 21st
\nApril, 2001, the deceased (Kunal) left Panchgani (where he was
\nliving with the parents) for Mahabaleshwar in his maruti car.
\nAt about 8:30 p.m., a taxi-driver informed the complainant
\nthat Kunal was lying in a pool of blood on Mahabaleshwar
\nroad. The complainant rushed to the spot and took his son in
\nan injured condition to the hospital where he was declared
\nbrought dead. The complainant lodged an F.I.R at
\nMahabaleshwar Police Station against unknown persons and
\nan offence was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.
\nHowever, on the next day, the complainant levelled allegation
\nthat since marriage of Kunal had been fixed with another girl,
\nthe appellant and his family members had developed a grudge
\nand had, therefore, hatched a conspiracy with co-accused
\nUmesh, Suresh, Bhavarlal Sharma, Captain Sharma to
\nmurder Kunal.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tOn completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
\nagainst the appellant before the Juvenile Court, Satara, being
\nbelow 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which
\nincluded his father (A-1), mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family
\nfriend (A-11), manager of his father (A-12), in Sessions Court,
\nSatara.    All of them have been arraigned as members to the
\nconspiracy to murder Kunal.  The appellant, herein, and
\naccused A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-7, A-11 and A-12 have been
\nprosecuted for offences under Section 302 and 120B of the
\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”), whereas
\naccused A-7 to A-10 and A-13 to A-16 have been prosecuted
\nfor offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B and
\nunder the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe appellant filed an application for discharge before the
\nJuvenile Justice Board, under Section 227 of the Code.  The
\nJuvenile Justice Board by order dated 1st October, 2004,
\nrejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said
\norder, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the
\nSessions Judge, Satara.  As noted above, the said appeal was
\ndismissed vide order dated 23rd March, 2005.  Still aggrieved,
\nthe appellant moved a revision application before the High
\nCourt.  Vide order dated 23rd June, 2006, the High Court
\ndismissed the criminal revision.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt appears that the mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family
\nfriend (A-11) and the manager of appellant’s father (A-12) had
\nalso moved applications under Section 227 of the Code before
\nthe Sessions Judge, Satara for discharge, which were
\ndismissed by virtue of orders dated 16th January, 2006 and 7th
\nOctober, 2003.  Both these orders were challenged by them by
\nmeans of two Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos.1283 and 1284 of
\n2006).  Both the petitions were allowed by the then Chief
\nJustice of the High Court vide a common order dated 7th July,
\n2006.  Inter-alia, observing that the circumstances highlighted
\nby the prosecution, even if accepted in entirety, only created a
\nsuspicion of motive, these were not sufficient to make out a
\ncase for conviction of the accused and some suspicion or
\nmotive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing of
\ncharge against them. Accordingly, all the four
\naccused\/petitioners were discharged.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tEmboldened by the said order, on 4th August, 2006, the
\nappellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition (No.1884 of 2006)
\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of
\nthe Code for quashing of aforenoted order dated 23rd March,
\n2005, passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara and for discharge
\nof the charges framed under Section 302 read with Section
\n120B of the I.P.C.  Expressing surprise over the fact that this
\npetition had been filed though the order impugned in the
\npetition stood confirmed on dismissal of criminal revision on
\n23rd June, 2006, the learned Judge rejected the plea of the
\nappellant that in the light of order dated 7th July, 2006, in the
\ncase of co-accused, by reason of parity, he was also entitled to
\nbe discharged.  Inter-alia, observing that earlier order dated
\n23rd June, 2006 in the case of the appellant, which was
\ncertainly relevant for deciding the Criminal Writ Petitions
\nNo.1283 & 1284 of 2006, had not been noticed in order dated
\n7th July, 2006 (by the Chief Justice), vide order dated 19th
\nSeptember, 2006, the learned Judge dismissed the petition.
\nAs noted above, both the orders, dated 23rd June, 2006 and
\n19th September, 2006 are challenged in these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAt this juncture, two other significant subsequent
\ndevelopments deserve to be noted.  In the first place, a Special
\nLeave Petition, preferred by the State against order of the High
\nCourt dated 7th July, 2006, discharging accused Nos.2, 4, 11
\n& 12, was dismissed on 30th April, 2007.  Secondly, relying on
\norder dated 7th July, 2006, the father (A-1) of the appellant,
\ntermed as the main accused in the charge-sheet, filed an
\napplication before the Sessions Judge for discharge from all
\nthe charges.  Taking note of the said order passed by the High
\nCourt, and inter-alia, observing that apart from the fact that
\nthe alleged threats are vague and are inadequate to connect
\nthe said accused with the crime, vide order dated 14th May,
\n2007, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there
\nwas absolutely no material on the basis whereof a reasonable
\nlikelihood of the said accused being convicted could be
\npredicted.  Accordingly, he has discharged the said accused.
\nThus, as on date, the father (A-1), the mother (A-2), the sister
\n(A-4) of the appellant and his two other associates (A-11 & A-\n<\/p>\n
12) stand discharged of the offences for which they were
\ncharged, namely, Sections 302 and 120B of I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr. Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the appellant, submitted that in the charge-
\nsheet there is no overt act attributed to the appellant
\nregarding actual murder and the threats allegedly given by his
\nfamily members and friends to the family of the deceased are
\nnot sufficient to infer a criminal conspiracy, particularly when,
\nthe disputes between the two families had already been
\ncompromised much prior to the incident. Learned counsel
\nsubmitted that accepting the prosecution case as it is, there is
\nabsolutely no material on record to frame a charge against the
\nappellant for offences under Sections 302 and Section 120B of
\nthe I.P.C.  It was also urged that other members of the family,
\nnamely, the mother and sister of the appellant along with two
\nother accused having been discharged by the High Court and
\nsimilarly the father of the appellant having been discharged by
\nthe Sessions Judge, there was no sufficient ground to proceed
\nagainst the appellant for the said offences.  In support of the
\nproposition that a mere suspicion is not sufficient to hold that
\nthere is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused,
\nlearned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court
\nin Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tMr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel
\nappearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that
\nthere is ample material on record to show a strong motive for
\ncommission of crime, namely, Kunal’s proposal to get married
\nto another girl after an affair with Hema (A-4), which was
\nobviously, not liked by the appellant and his family members.
\nIt was thus, pleaded that the High Court was justified in
\ndismissing appellant’s petitions for discharge.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tBefore adverting to the rival submissions, we may briefly
\nnotice the scope and ambit of powers of the Trial Judge under
\nSection 227 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tChapter XVIII of the Code lays down the procedure for
\ntrial before the Court of Sessions, pursuant to an order of
\ncommitment under Section 209 of the Code.  Section 227
\ncontemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a
\ndischarge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to
\nframing of charge under Section 228.  It provides that upon
\nconsideration of the record of the case, the documents
\nsubmitted with the police report and after hearing the accused
\nand the prosecution, the Court is expected, nay bound to
\ndecide whether there is “sufficient ground” to proceed against
\nthe accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the
\naccused or proceed to frame charge against him.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIt is trite that the words “not sufficient ground for
\nproceeding against the accused” appearing in the Section
\npostulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to
\nthe facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for
\ntrial has been made out by the prosecution.  However, in
\nassessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh
\nthe material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or
\nnot a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
\nThe test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the
\nfacts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor
\ndesirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and
\nlarge, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge
\nis satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to
\nsuspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will
\nbe fully within his right to discharge the accused.  At this
\nstage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in
\nconviction or not.  The broad test to be applied is whether the
\nmaterials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction
\nreasonably possible.  [See: State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh
\nSingh  and Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra)]\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn the light of the aforenoted principles, we may now
\nconsider whether or not in the present case the High Court
\nwas justified in declining to discharge the appellant.  However,
\nbefore adverting to the circumstances, relied upon by the
\nprosecution in support of its primary charge that a conspiracy
\nhad been hatched to eliminate Kunal, the essential features of
\nthe offence of conspiracy need to be noticed\n<\/p>\n
17.\tSection 120A of I.P.C. defines criminal conspiracy.  The
\nsection reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“120A. Definition of criminal
\nconspiracy.When two or more persons
\nagree to do, or cause to be done,
\n(1)\tan illegal act, or
\n(2)\tan act which is not illegal by illegal
\nmeans, such an agreement is
\ndesignated a criminal conspiracy:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no agreement except an
\nagreement to commit an offence shall
\namount to a criminal conspiracy unless
\nsome act besides the agreement is done
\nby one or more parties to such agreement
\nin pursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.It is immaterial whether
\nthe illegal act is the ultimate object of
\nsuch agreement, or is merely incidental
\nto that object.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 120B of I.P.C. provides for punishment for an
\noffence of criminal conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe basic ingredients of the offence of criminal
\nconspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done
\neither (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself
\nbut is done by illegal means.  It is, therefore, plain that
\nmeeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing
\nto be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua
\nnon of criminal conspiracy.  Yet, as observed by this Court in
\nShivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of
\nMaharashtra , a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and
\nit is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common
\nintention of the conspirators.  Therefore, the meeting of minds
\nof the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances
\nproved by the prosecution, if such inference is possible.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIn Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar
\n& Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra , it was observed that for
\nan offence under Section 120B, the prosecution need not
\nnecessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do
\nand\/or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be
\nproved by necessary implication.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi
\nAdministration) , the gist of the offence of the conspiracy has
\nbeen brought out succinctly in the following words:
\n“The gist of the offence of conspiracy then
\nlies, not in doing the act, or effecting the
\npurpose for which the conspiracy is
\nformed, nor in attempting to do them, nor
\nin inciting others to do them, but in the
\nforming of the scheme or agreement
\nbetween the parties. Agreement is
\nessential. Mere knowledge, or even
\ndiscussion, of the plan is not, per se,
\nenough.”\n<\/p>\n
21.\tAgain in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath
\nThapa & Ors. , a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that
\nto establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about
\nindulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal
\nmeans is necessary.  In some cases, intent of unlawful use
\nbeing made of the goods or services in question may be
\ninferred from the knowledge itself.  This apart, the prosecution
\nhas not to establish that a particular unlawful use was
\nintended, so long as the goods or service in question could not
\nbe put to any lawful use.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tMore recently, in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot
\nSandhu @ Afsan Guru , making exhaustive reference to
\nseveral decisions on the point, including in State Through
\nSuperintendent of Police, CBI\/SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors. ,
\nVenkatarama Reddi, J. observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Mostly, the conspiracies are proved by
\nthe circumstantial evidence, as the
\nconspiracy is seldom an open affair.\n<\/p>\n
Usually both the existence of the
\nconspiracy and its objects have to be
\ninferred from the circumstances and the
\nconduct of the accused (per Wadhwa, J.\n<\/p>\n
in Nalini’s case at page 516). The well
\nknown rule governing circumstantial
\nevidence is that each and every
\nincriminating circumstance must be
\nclearly established by reliable evidence
\nand “the circumstances proved must form
\na chain of events from which the only
\nirresistible conclusion about the guilt of
\nthe accused can be safely drawn and no
\nother hypothesis against the guilt is
\npossible.” (Tanviben Pankajkumar case ,
\nSCC page 185, para 45).  G.N. Ray, J. in
\nTanibeert Pankajkumar observed that this
\nCourt should not allow the suspicion to
\ntake the place of legal proof.”\n<\/p>\n
23.\tThus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or
\nmore persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means
\nis sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be
\npossible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof.
\nNevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can
\nbe inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the
\nconduct of the accused.  But the incriminating circumstances
\nmust form a chain of events from which a conclusion about
\nthe guilt of the accused could be drawn.  It is well settled that
\nan offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders
\nthe mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if
\nan offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal
\nagreement.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tBearing in mind the essential features of the offence of
\ncriminal conspiracy, enumerated above, we may advert to the
\nfacts of the instant case. The relevant portion of the charge-
\nsheet filed against all the accused reads as follows:
\n“Though son of the complainant Kunal
\nParihar got married with accused No.4
\nHema Joshi, his family again arranged for
\nanother marriage with one Meenal of
\nBaroda on 24.2.2001.  Engagement
\nceremony took place and date of marriage
\nwas fixed as 30.11.2001.  this fact came
\nto the knowledge of the accused
\nNo.1,2,3,4 & 5 and 11 & 12.  Therefore,
\nin order to teach a lesson to the
\ncomplainant they hatch conspiracy to kill
\nhis only son, Kunal.  Accordingly accused
\nNo.1 contacted accused No.6 Suresh
\nJhajara and further informed him the
\ncomplainant and his son should be
\ntaught a lesson as Kunal Parihar
\nbetrayed him.  Hence should be taught a
\nlesson and further asked to carry out
\nfuture plan.\n<\/p>\n
Accused No.6, contacted accused No.7
\nand included him in the aforesaid
\nconspiracy.  Accused No.1 to 4, contacted
\naccused No.16, through accused No.6
\nand 7, accused No.16 pending is a
\nnotorious criminal.  Criminal cases are
\npending against him in the District Court
\nof Pune.  In the offence regarding body,
\naccused No.7 contacted him through
\nwitnesses Atul Lohar in order to carry out
\nthe aforesaid plan.  Accused No.1 gave
\nRs.80,000\/- to accused No.7 via accused
\nNo.6.  Accused No.16, in order to cause
\nhurt to Kunal introduced accused No.8,
\n9, 10, 13, 14, 15 to accused No.7.\n<\/p>\n
Accused No.7 asked accused No.8, 9, 10,
\n13, 14, 15 to joint the aforesaid
\nconspiracy and in order to carry out the
\naforesaid conspiracy successfully accused
\nNo.7 purchased one Maruti Car No.MH-\n<\/p>\n
14 D-3027 from witness Afzal Khan
\nIbrahim Khan, resident of Dehu Road
\nand also Motor Cycle No.MH-14-M-5786.\n<\/p>\n
By using the aforesaid vehicles accused
\nNo.7 to 10 and 13 to 15 have committed
\nghastly murder of Kunal.  In order to
\ncarry out the aforesaid conspiracy
\nsuccessfully accused No.7 has used
\nrevolver, khukri, sickle, sword and iron
\nbar and supplied it to accused No.8 to 10 <\/span>
\nand from 13 to 15, by using the aforesaid
\nweapons the aforesaid persons have
\nassaulted Kunal Parihar by which he
\nsustained grave injuries and ultimately
\ndied.  Hence accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
\n7, 11 and 12 have charged been under
\nSections 302, 120B IPC and accused
\nNo.7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have
\ncharged u\/s 302 read with 120B IPC and
\nunder Arms Act Section 3 and 25.”\n<\/p>\n
          [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
25.\tThus, according to the prosecution version, when
\naccused, A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 learnt about the marriage
\nof Kunal with some other girl, they hatched a conspiracy to
\nteach a lesson to the father of Kunal, the deceased.  In
\nfurtherance thereof, accused A-1 contacted one of the
\nassassins to kill Kunal.  It is alleged that accused A-1 to A-4
\nalso contacted accused A-16, a notorious criminal.  In other
\nwords, the gravamen of the accusation by the prosecution is
\nthat it is accused A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 who had hatched
\nthe conspiracy; acted in concert to give effect to their plan to
\nget Kunal murdered and in pursuance of the aforesaid
\ncriminal conspiracy, the other accused facilitated commission
\nof the said crime.  It is common ground that the case of the
\nprosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, namely,
\nthreatening calls from the side of the accused to the
\ncomplainant, his family and the earlier relationship between
\nthe deceased and accused No.4.  From the material on record,
\nit is manifestly clear that it was the family members of the
\nappellant, one of their employees and a friend who allegedly
\nhad all entered into an agreement to eliminate the deceased.
\nHowever, as noted above, accused A-1, A-2, A-4, A-11 and
\nA-12 already stand discharged from the charges framed
\nagainst them under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C vide orders
\ndated 7th July, 2006 and 14th May, 2007, passed by the High
\nCourt and the Sessions Judge respectively.  While discharging
\nthe said accused, both the courts have come to the conclusion
\nthat there is no material on record to show that they had
\nhatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Kunal.  Thus, the
\nstand of the prosecution to the effect that the parents, sister
\nand friends of the appellants had entered into a criminal
\nconspiracy stands rejected by virtue of the said orders of
\ndischarge.  Furthermore, in its order dated 7th July, 2006, the
\nHigh Court has opined that the circumstances, relied upon by
\nthe prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, only create a
\nsuspicion of motive, which is not sufficient to bring home an
\noffence of murder.  As noted above, State’s petition for special
\nleave against the said judgment has already been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tWe are, therefore, of the view that in the light of the
\nsubsequent events, namely, the orders of the High Court dated
\n7th July, 2006 in Criminal Writ Petitions No. 1283 & 1284 of
\n2006, discharging appellant’s mother, sister and two close
\nassociates, accused Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 respectively; order
\ndated 30th April, 2007 passed by this Court dismissing the
\nSpecial Leave Petition preferred by the State against order
\ndated 7th July, 2006 and order dated 14th May, 2007 passed
\nby the Sessions Judge, Satara, discharging the father (A-1) of
\nthe appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire
\nconspiracy, for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C.,
\non same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient
\nground survives to proceed against the appellant for the
\naforementioned offences.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tFor the reasons aforesaid, we are constrained to allow the
\nappeals.  Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and
\nthe appellant is discharged from the charges levelled against
\nhim in the charge-sheet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 Author: D Jain Bench: S. B. Sinha, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 744 of 2008 PETITIONER: YOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/04\/2008 BENCH: S. B. SINHA & D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nYogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 - 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\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-07T21:35:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T21:35:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3778,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T21:35:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 - 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\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-07T21:35:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T21:35:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008"},"wordCount":3778,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008","name":"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T21:35:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-sachin-jagdish-joshi-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/44896","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=44896"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44896\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}