{"id":50107,"date":"2010-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-24T15:29:37","modified_gmt":"2018-09-24T09:59:37","slug":"edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                                 1\n\n\n                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                   \n                                     BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:    453   \/2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    Edlya @ Eda  Pyarsingh Waskale\n    Aged  25 years,  R\/o  Bhingara \n    Tq.Jalgaon-Jamod Dist. Buldana.                         ...                                  ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                         v e r s u s\n                                         \n    The State of Maharashtra\n                                        \n    Through   Police Station Officer\n    Police Station Jalgaon-Jamod.                                                                ...RESPONDENT\n       \n\n\n    ............................................................................................................................\n                        Mr   R M  Patwardhan,  Advocate for appellant\n    \n\n\n\n                        Mrs.A.R. Taiwade, Addl. Public Prosecutor   for Respondent\n    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                                            CORAM:   A.P.BHANGALE,   J.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                            DATED:    17th  September,2010\n\n\n     JUDGMENT :   \n<\/pre>\n
     1.                This  appeal is  directed against the judgment and order dated 7th <\/p>\n
     February,   2009   passed   by   learned   Ad-hoc     Additional   Sessions   Judge <\/p>\n
     Khamgaon   in Sessions Trial  No.4  of   2008    whereby  the appellant was <\/p>\n
     found guilty   of offences     of kidnapping   and raping   a minor     girl   Pinky <\/p>\n
     aged  about  13 years.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.            It is the  case of the prosecution that the victim  Pinky on or about <\/p>\n
    9.10.2007  at 5.00 p.m.   had gone to   Ghat  Bhingara for grinding jwar  in a <\/p>\n
    flour mill,   which was closed and, as such,  Pinky  halted   at   the house of <\/p>\n
    her  cousin, by name,  Radkya   Bhilala  on that night.    On the     following <\/p>\n
    morning,    she got the    jwar grinded  from flour mill and  was  returning <\/p>\n
    with her niece   Ku.       Sangeeta,     aged about 5 years,     by     road.       The <\/p>\n
    appellant\/ accused Edlya met   her on the   road     near Bhendi Pahad   and <\/p>\n
    asked   her to accompany   with   him   saying that   he wants     to marry her.\n<\/p>\n
    Despite    steadfast   spurning  of the  offer         by  the  prosecutrix,  he  forcibly <\/p>\n
    took her to   his brother’s house who also sided with the accused. Later the <\/p>\n
    accused     took     her   to   the   field   of     one   Ramesh       Dharme       in   Sungaon <\/p>\n
    Shiwar         and   then   to   a   hut     and   raped   her.   The   victim     had   somehow <\/p>\n
    succeeded in escape and narrated the incident to   her father who   lodged <\/p>\n
    report     at   Jalgaon-Jamod       Police   Station   on   13.10.2007,   being   FIR   No. <\/p>\n
    114\/2007    registered  under sections 363, 366 and 376  of the Indian Penal <\/p>\n
    Code. The accused  was arrested on 14.10.2007.    The Investigating Officer <\/p>\n
    proceeded to  the   spot  of incident pointed out  by father of the victim girl <\/p>\n
    and   drew     Panchnama     (Exh.16).       During   the   course   of   investigation, <\/p>\n
    clothes  of victim  as also clothes of accused  were seized under Panchnamas.\n<\/p>\n
    The seized    articles   were sent for chemical analysis. Upon completion  of <\/p>\n
    investigation,  charge-sheet  was laid  in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First <\/p>\n
    Class, Jalgaon-Jamod  who,  committed the  case to the Additional  Court of <\/p>\n
    Sessions in  Khamgaon, for trial.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.            Charge     was   framed     on     12.8.2008   (Exh.9).       The   accused <\/p>\n
    pleaded not guilty  and  claimed trial.   As  many  as  eight  witnesses were <\/p>\n
    examined   in support of the prosecution.   The defence of the accused  was <\/p>\n
    that of   total denial.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            In support  of  Appeal, Mr R M Patwardhan, learned Advocate for <\/p>\n
    appellant,  submitted that the trial Court ought to have given benefit  of doubt <\/p>\n
    to the appellant   as there   may be possibility of   false involvement of the <\/p>\n
    appellant.   He made a reference to the evidence of PW  1 -Gulabsingh    who <\/p>\n
    had deposed about  an village meeting of Panchas in which    father of Pinky <\/p>\n
    (prosecutrix) demanded Rs.30,000\/-   from appellant, which was denied by <\/p>\n
    the appellant. Tatusingh (PW  2), father of prosecutrix,  has flatly denied  any <\/p>\n
    quarrel   between   him   and   Pyarsingh       (father   of   Idlya).     There     was   no <\/p>\n
    suggestion  in cross-examination about  any village    meeting   as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
    Prosecutrix Pinky was  examined  as PW  3 who   deposed about the incident.\n<\/p>\n
    She stated that while she was returning   with jwar  flour, near Bhendi  Pahad <\/p>\n
    area, the accused Idlya   caught  hold of her  and  insisted upon her to come <\/p>\n
    with him. On stubborn   refusal,   she   was assaulted by iron chain and was <\/p>\n
    forced     to accompany   with the   appellant.   She   was taken to Sungaon-\n<\/p>\n
    Shiwar    in the field of one Ramesh  Dharme     and inside the hut of   that <\/p>\n
    field,   accused had subjected   the prosecutrix to forcible   sexual intercourse <\/p>\n
    thrice during that night.  On the following  day, the prosecutrix   was taken to <\/p>\n
    the   house   of   Dhansingh.     When   Idlya       went     out     to   bring     meal,   the <\/p>\n
    prosecutrix  ran  away and  went back to her  parents’ house and  narrated the <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
    incident to them. Thereafter, they  decided to lodge   report (Exh.19)     to the <\/p>\n
    Police.   Prosecutrix   was   referred   for     medical   examination.       Dr   Prashant <\/p>\n
    Sonone, Medical Officer in General Hospital, Khamgaon  (PW 4),  examined <\/p>\n
    prosecutrix -Pinky  and found the following injuries  on her persons :\n<\/p>\n
                  “(1)          Two   wounds     well   epithelialised,   black   in
\n                  colour are seen over medial aspect of right foot of size 0.5 <\/p>\n
                  x 0.5 cm. Caused by blunt and rough object.\n<\/p>\n
                  2)            Hymen ruptured -laceration  red coloured  on <\/p>\n
                  right side   of size 0.5 cm   vertical   jut outside hymen   is
\n                  seen.\n<\/p>\n
                  3)            Per   vaginal   exam:     admits   just   one   finger, \n                  Patient not cooperating for P\/V exam.\n                  Perineum intact.\"\n      \n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    The observations in respect of injuries  of rupture of hymen,   laceration  just <\/p>\n
    outside hymen,  vagina  admitting one finger    and opinion expressed about <\/p>\n
    possibility   of   penetration   do   corroborate     the   prosecutrix’s   evidence.   Dr. <\/p>\n
    Sahebrao     Manwar   (PW   7)     who   conducted   radiological     examination <\/p>\n
    (Exh.36) to determine age of   the   prosecutrix opined that she   was aged <\/p>\n
    between 14 to 15 years.   C.A. Report  (Exh.14)    corroborated the evidence <\/p>\n
    of prosecutrix.    As few bloodstains  were detected on skirt   ranging from 0.5 <\/p>\n
    cm.    to  3  cm. in diameter  spread    at  places; so  also  two        semen stains <\/p>\n
    detected each about  2 c.m.  in  diameter, on front  middle portion of knicker.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           Learned  Advocate for appellant made  reference to the  State of <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    U.P.     vs. Jaggo @ Jagdish   and others   : 1971 Cri.L.J.       1173 (SC),  to <\/p>\n
    argue that   all witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but witnesses <\/p>\n
    whose     evidence   is essential   to the unfolding     of the narrative     must be <\/p>\n
    called.    Absence of material witnesses  does seriously affect the truth  of the <\/p>\n
    prosecution case.   It cannot  be disputed  that evidence of all available  eye <\/p>\n
    witnesses   to   the   incident   is   must   to   determine   guilt     or   innocence   of   the <\/p>\n
    accused.       Therefore,   eye   witnesses   whose   evidence   is   essential   to   the <\/p>\n
    unfolding of narrative on which the prosecution case is based are required to <\/p>\n
    be examined because absence of an eye witness may affect the fair     trial.\n<\/p>\n
    Nothing   really prevented     the accused from   insisting     upon applying   for <\/p>\n
    production of any witness ( not examined  by the prosecution ) to be   cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examined.    No such case was made out   to produce     any witness for the <\/p>\n
    purpose of  cross-examination.    In a rape trial  the trial Court  as  a  general <\/p>\n
    rule,  cannot  refuse  to  act upon testimony  of  victim once it is found that it <\/p>\n
    is reliable    and has a ring of truth.    The evidence   of prosecutrix in a trial <\/p>\n
    for   offence   of   rape     and   kidnapping     is  like     an  injured   witness   deposing <\/p>\n
    about physical assault upon him or her.  Injury  to  a rape victim  is physical, <\/p>\n
    mental as well as  irreparable scar on her reputation as it gets  spoiled  and <\/p>\n
    honour  is lost in the eyes of members   of the society to which she belongs.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that  stains  of <\/p>\n
    semen   were found on the knicker  of the appellant  and not on the knicker <\/p>\n
    of prosecutrix.     The trial Court ought to have observed that semen       stain <\/p>\n
    on the underwear of  young man is natural.   This submission could have been <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    appreciated   in   the   absence   of   evidence   of   forcible   sexual     intercourse     as <\/p>\n
    deposed   to   by   the   prosecutrix   girl   to   which   medical   evidence   also <\/p>\n
    corroborated, which leads to an inevitable conclusion  that the appellant had <\/p>\n
    subjected the prosecutrix   minor girl,   aged about   14 years old to   forcible <\/p>\n
    sexual   intercourse after having kidnapped her from her lawful guardianship.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned Trial Judge    had ample evidence before him to reach the findings of <\/p>\n
    conviction, in the  facts and circumstances of the case..\n<\/p>\n
    7.            Learned Advocate for the appellant, in the  alternative, submitted <\/p>\n
    that   the   appellant   may   be   released   by   taking   a   lenient   view   to   treat   the <\/p>\n
    sentence     as   already   undergone     as   sufficient.         I   cannot   agree   with   the <\/p>\n
    submission as the Courts     are required to show great sensitivity   to serious <\/p>\n
    crime committed of raping  a minor  girl.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            I have perused the   ruling in  State of H P   vs.     Mange Ram<\/a> :\n<\/p>\n
    2000 Cri.L.J.   4027 (SC)       In the said ruling       acquittal   was   set aside <\/p>\n
    considering that in presence of village people the parties must have buried the <\/p>\n
    hatchet since acquittal  by the courts below,  the sentence was  reduced in the <\/p>\n
    interest of justice by the Court to  that as  already undergone.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            In the  case in hand,   a minor girl  below 16 years  of age, was <\/p>\n
    physically and sexually ravished.   The trial Court had  accepted her evidence <\/p>\n
    which   is found reliable.     Conviction in such a   case can be recorded even <\/p>\n
    upon sole  uncorroborated  testimony if  testimony   is blemishless or worthy <\/p>\n
    of   credence.       The   other   evidence   led   by   the   prosecution   had   provided <\/p>\n
    necessary corroboration  even if it is  felt that it   was     required.    The trial <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court had    taken  lenient view considering that the  appellant  hails  from a <\/p>\n
    rural background,  impoverished family  and that other family members  were <\/p>\n
    dependent on him as also his youth, while directing that all the sentences <\/p>\n
    were to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         For the foregoing  reasons, therefore, no ground is  made out  to <\/p>\n
    reduce the sentence  awarded by the trial Court.    The appeal, therefore, fails <\/p>\n
    and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         Copy of   this judgment and order be served upon the appellant-\n<\/p>\n
    convict  through Superintendent of Jail, concerned.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:27:00 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 453 \/2009 Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale Aged 25 years, R\/o Bhingara Tq.Jalgaon-Jamod Dist. Buldana. … …APPELLANT v e r s u […]<\/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-50107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEdlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 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\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-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=\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-24T09:59:37+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T09:59:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1441,\"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\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T09:59:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 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":"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 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\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-24T09:59:37+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T09:59:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010"},"wordCount":1441,"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\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010","name":"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T09:59:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edlya-eda-pyarsingh-waskale-vs-unknown-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Edlya @ Eda Pyarsingh Waskale vs Unknown on 17 September, 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\/50107","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=50107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}