{"id":59010,"date":"2011-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-09-22T05:27:12","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T23:57:12","slug":"shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                       1                           cri appeal 332.99\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 332 OF 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n           Shaikh Baba S\/o Shaikh Anis,\n           Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Rickshaw Driver,\n           R\/o Rajuri Ves, Beed.              ..    ..    Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                  Versusig\n           The State of Maharashtra,\n                      \n           (Copy to be served on Public\n           Prosecutor, High Court of\n           Judicature of Bombay, Bench\n      \n\n\n           at Aurangabad)                            ..      ..    Respondent\n   \n\n\n\n     Shri A. S. Gaikwad, Advocate h\/f Shri S. M. Godsay, Advocate for \n     the Appellant.\n     Shri V. G. Shelke, A.P.P. for the Respondent\/State.\n\n\n\n\n\n                         CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J.\n\n\n                         DATE     : 24TH JANUARY, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     .     This   appeal   is   filed   by   the   appellant\/accused   challenging <\/p>\n
     the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions <\/p>\n
     Case No. 20\/1999 dated 02nd August, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         2                            cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     2.     Brief facts of the case are as under :\n<\/p>\n
            The complainant Vidya Sanjay Wadmare is wife of P.W. 5 <\/p>\n
     Sanjay Wadmare, serving as a staff Nurse in the Civil Hospital, <\/p>\n
     Beed, while her husband P.W. 5 Sanjay Wadmare is serving in <\/p>\n
     Police Department as a Police Constable and attached to Police <\/p>\n
     Station, Paraly in the year 1998.\n<\/p>\n
     3.<\/p>\n
            The alleged incident took place on 15.07.1998 at about 9.15 <\/p>\n
     to 9.30 p.m. approximately at Bashirgunj, Beed, near Tara Pan <\/p>\n
     Centre.  On 15.07.1998 as the daughter  of P.W. 3 Vidya and P.W.\n<\/p>\n
     5 Sanjay namely Puja was not feeling well.  P.W. 3 Vidya gave a <\/p>\n
     telephonic message to Sanjay Wadmare at Paraly about illness of <\/p>\n
     Puja.  Accordingly, P.W. 5 Sanjay came to Beed at about 5.00 p.m. <\/p>\n
     on 15.07.1998.  Both P.W. 3 Vidya and P.W. 5 Sanjay took Puja for <\/p>\n
     necessary treatment to Dr. Tambde and returned to their house <\/p>\n
     from the hospital of Dr. Tambde and took dinner at about 8.30 <\/p>\n
     p.m.  P.W. 5 Sanjay then informing his wife P.W. 3 Vidya, went to <\/p>\n
     Tara   Pan   Centre   from   Bahirgunj   area   for   taking   betel   or   Pan <\/p>\n
     approximately   at   about   9.15   p.m.   and   after   taking   betel   from <\/p>\n
     Tara Pan Centre, he was on way to return to his house.  At that <\/p>\n
     time, accused Nos. 1 and 2 attacked Sanjay Wadmare P.W. 5 with <\/p>\n
     knife and gupti and gave blows to Sanjay.   Accordingly, P.W. 5 <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3                           cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     Sanjay sustained several injuries on his chest, back, neck, hand <\/p>\n
     and   other   parts   of   body.     He   raised   shouts.     Pappu   Jogdand, <\/p>\n
     Madhukar Wadmare and Vinod Dongre who were near the place <\/p>\n
     of incident, immediately came there.  Accused ran away from the <\/p>\n
     place.   Pappu Jogdand, Vinod Dongre and Madhukar Wadmare <\/p>\n
     then took P.W. 5 Sanjay in auto rickshaw to Civil Hospital, Beed.\n<\/p>\n
     Information   was   also   given   to   P.W.   3   Vidya   wife   of   Sanjay <\/p>\n
     Wadmare.     She   also   immediately   came   in   the   Civil   Hospital, <\/p>\n
     made enquiry with Sanjay about injuries and  Sanjay disclosed <\/p>\n
     that   accused   Nos.   1   and   2   attacked   with   knife   and   gupti   on <\/p>\n
     account of previous enmity and quarrel took place at the time of <\/p>\n
     marriage some where in the month of November, 1997.   P.W. 3 <\/p>\n
     Vidya Wadmare accordingly gave information to the police, who <\/p>\n
     was   on   duty   at   Civil   Hospital,   Beed.     Doctor   from   the   Civil <\/p>\n
     Hospital   who   was   on   duty,   namely   Kailas   Ganpatrao   Dudhal, <\/p>\n
     accordingly,   attended   P.W.   5   Sanjay   Wadmare.     He   was <\/p>\n
     accordingly admitted in the Civil Hospital as indoor patient.   A <\/p>\n
     call   was   given   to   a   concerned   Surgeon   and   accordingly   Dr. <\/p>\n
     Avinash   Deshpande,   P.W.   6   then   came   in   the   hospital   and <\/p>\n
     examined   Sanjay   Wadmare.     Thereafter,   he   was   operated.\n<\/p>\n
     Sanjay was in the hospital as indoor patient till 28.07.1998.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          4                           cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     4.     On the basis of the report given by P.W. 3 Vidya Wadmare, <\/p>\n
     Police   Station   Officer,   P.   S.   Beed   (City)   accordingly   registered <\/p>\n
     Crime  No. 250\/1998 against  the  accused for the  offence  U\/Sec.\n<\/p>\n
     307 r\/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.   The investigation of <\/p>\n
     the above said crime was thereafter handed over to P.W. 10 P.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
     Fulzalke,   who   during   the   course   of   investigation,   visited   the <\/p>\n
     place of incident, and prepared spot panchanama in presence of <\/p>\n
     panchas which is proved at Exhibit 13.  He also prepared a map <\/p>\n
     as regards the place as shown by P.W. 4 Pappu Jogdand. He then <\/p>\n
     during the course of investigation recorded statements of certain <\/p>\n
     witnesses   and   arrested   accused   on   25.07.1998.     The   accused <\/p>\n
     while   in   the   custody   of   police   made   disclosure   statement   and <\/p>\n
     showed their willingness to produce weapons.   Memorandum to <\/p>\n
     that   effect   is   prepared.     The   accused   in   pursuance   of   the <\/p>\n
     disclosure statement, then produced weapons.   The same being <\/p>\n
     attached by Police Sub-Inspector i. e., article Nos. 7 and 10 before <\/p>\n
     the Court.  The clothes which were on the person of accused Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     1   and   2   were   also   separately   attached   under   separate <\/p>\n
     panchanamas.  The clothes which were on the person of injured <\/p>\n
     Sanjay   Wadmare,   were   also   attached   under   panchanama   Exh.\n<\/p>\n
     44.  The clothes which were on the person of accused, the clothes <\/p>\n
     which were on the person of injured Sanjay and weapons article <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5                           cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     Nos.   7   and   10   were   then   sent   to   the   Chemical   Analyser, <\/p>\n
     Aurangabad, along with the letter on 09.09.1998 along with blood <\/p>\n
     samples   of   accused   and   Sanjay   Wadmare.     The   report   is <\/p>\n
     accordingly   received   from   the   Chemical   Analyser,   Aurangabad.\n<\/p>\n
     P.S.I.   Phulzalke   accordingly   after   completing   the   investigation, <\/p>\n
     submitted   charge   sheet   against   the   accused   before   the   Chief <\/p>\n
     Judicial Magistrate, Beed, on 16.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     The   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Beed,   by   his   order   dated <\/p>\n
     04.01.1999   below   Exh.   1   committed   the   case   to   the   Court   of <\/p>\n
     Sessions as the offence U\/Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code being <\/p>\n
     exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     The   VII   Assistant   Sessions   Judge,   Beed   (Shri   R.   S.\n<\/p>\n
     Kharkar)  framed  charge   against  the  accused  as  per  Exh.  5 on <\/p>\n
     28.01.1999 for the offences U\/Sec. 307 r\/w Sec. 34 of the Indian <\/p>\n
     Penal   Code.     The   same   was   read-over   and   explained   to   the <\/p>\n
     accused.  They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be <\/p>\n
     tried.   Their defence is of total denial.   According to them they <\/p>\n
     being falsely involved in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.  The <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                           6                            cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     Sessions   Court   after   taking   into   consideration   the   entire <\/p>\n
     evidence on record and after hearing the respective counsel by its <\/p>\n
     judgment   and   order   dated   02nd   August,   1999   convicted   the <\/p>\n
     accused   Shaikh   Baba   Shaikh   Anis   and   accused   No.   2   Sayyad <\/p>\n
     Azim Sayyad Naim for the offence punishable U\/Sec. 324 r\/w Sec.\n<\/p>\n
     34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   they   are   sentences   to   suffer <\/p>\n
     rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500\/-\n<\/p>\n
     each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R. I. for <\/p>\n
     one month.   The Court has also given set off U\/Sec. 428 of the <\/p>\n
     Criminal   Procedure   Code,   as   the   accused   were   arrested   on <\/p>\n
     25.07.1998 and released on bail on 13.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   submitted <\/p>\n
     that, the evidence of eye witnesses cannot be believed.  There are <\/p>\n
     material   contradictions   in   their   version.     The   counsel   also <\/p>\n
     submitted that, the victim is police constable and, therefore, false <\/p>\n
     case is filed against the appellant.  It is further submitted that, <\/p>\n
     to convincingly prove the prosecution case against the appellant, <\/p>\n
     there   is   no   proper   recovery   of   the   weapon   from   the   appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The counsel invited my attention to the para 18 of the impugned <\/p>\n
     judgment   and   submitted   that,   the   learned   Judge   himself   has <\/p>\n
     observed that, there is no proper recovery of Article Nos. 7 and 10 <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7                          cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     at the instance of the accused.  Therefore, the counsel appearing <\/p>\n
     for the appellant would submit that, the appeal deserves to be <\/p>\n
     allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the <\/p>\n
     respondent\/State submitted that, the Sessions Court taking into <\/p>\n
     consideration the entire evidence on record and evidence of the <\/p>\n
     prosecution   witnesses   has   convicted   the   accused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     10.   With the  assistance  of the  learned  counsel   appearing  for <\/p>\n
     the   appellant   and   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor <\/p>\n
     appearing for the State I have carefully perused the record and <\/p>\n
     proceedings.   I have also gone through the evidence of the eye <\/p>\n
     witnesses and also medical evidence and I am of the opinion that, <\/p>\n
     there is direct evidence in the matter corroborated by the medical <\/p>\n
     evidence.  Therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly convicted the <\/p>\n
     accused\/appellant.   The evidence of P.W. 1 Pappu Jogdand and <\/p>\n
     P.W.   5   Sanjay   Wadmare   supports   the   prosecution   story.     The <\/p>\n
     Trial   Court  has  discussed  the   evidence  of   said   witnesses   from <\/p>\n
     para   13   to   17.     P.W.   4   Pappu   Jogdand   and   P.W.   5   Sanjay <\/p>\n
     Wadmare   in   their   evidence   have   specifically   stated   about   the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8                           cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     manner  in  which  incident  had   taken  place   and   assault   by  the <\/p>\n
     appellant along with co-accused, the weapons used by them.  The <\/p>\n
     evidence of P.W. 5 Sanjay Wadmare and P.W. 4 Pappu Jogdand <\/p>\n
     and   Vidya   Wadmare   is   corroborated   by   the   medical   evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Avinash Deshpande and P.W. 8 Dr. <\/p>\n
     Kailash   Dudhal   shows   that,   Sanjay   Wadmare   (victim)   was <\/p>\n
     immediately admitted in the hospital.  Dr. Kailash Dudhal in his <\/p>\n
     evidence at Exhibit 32 stated that, on 15.07.1998 he was on duty <\/p>\n
     as Medical Officer.  At about 9.40 p.m. Sanjay was brought to the <\/p>\n
     hospital.  He examined and found six injuries on his person i. e.\n<\/p>\n
     incised wound on left para spinal region, incised wound on right <\/p>\n
     gluteal   region,   incised   wound   on   left   axilla,   incised   wound   on <\/p>\n
     anterior   aspect   of   chest,   incised   wound   on   left   arm   posterior <\/p>\n
     aspect and incised wound on left ear.\n<\/p>\n
     11.    The   Medical   Officer   has   opined   that,   out   of   these   six <\/p>\n
     injuries, the injury at Sr. No. 3, 4 and 6 are grievous in nature.\n<\/p>\n
     He   has   also   opined   that,   those   injuries   are   caused   within   24 <\/p>\n
     hours prior to his admission in the hospital.   According to him, <\/p>\n
     the injuries are possible with sharp weapon.  The evidence of this <\/p>\n
     witness has been categorically discussed by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,   presence   of   the   Pappu   Jogdand   at   the   spot   is <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9                           cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     established by the prosecution.  It has also came on record that, <\/p>\n
     Pappu   Jogdand   and   Sanjay   Wadmare   were   knowing   the <\/p>\n
     appellant\/accused   even   prior   to   the   incident   as   this   aspect   is <\/p>\n
     sufficiently   clear   from   the   evidence   as   on   account   of   previous <\/p>\n
     enmity.\n<\/p>\n
            It is true that, in para 18 the learned Sessions Court has <\/p>\n
     expressed   displeasure   for   not   having   proper   recovery   of   the <\/p>\n
     weapon   and   also   about   the   manner   in   which   prosecution   has <\/p>\n
     handled the case to sent the sample to the Chemical Analyser <\/p>\n
     and procedure followed therein.  However, the evidence of the eye <\/p>\n
     witness   which   is   fully   corroborated   by   the   medical   evidence <\/p>\n
     cannot   be   brushed   aside.     The   eye   witnesses   have   seen   the <\/p>\n
     accused appellant at spot assaulting the Sanjay Wadmare.   The <\/p>\n
     Sanjay   Wadmare   is   police   constable   and   there   is   no   reason   to <\/p>\n
     falsely   implicate   the   appellant   and   co-accused   by   the   Sanjay <\/p>\n
     Wadmare.     The   evidence   of   the   wife   of   the   Sanjay   Wadmare <\/p>\n
     shows that, Sanjay Wadmare immediately narrated the incident <\/p>\n
     and disclosed the name of the accused to P.W. 3 wife of Sanjay <\/p>\n
     Wadmare.   Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my <\/p>\n
     opinion,   the   Sessions   Court   has   taken   a   correct   and   possible <\/p>\n
     view.  It is true that, the Sessions Court has considered the case <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10                            cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     of offence U\/Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code.  However, in para <\/p>\n
     20 and 21, the Sessions Court has recorded that, in the facts and <\/p>\n
     circumstances   of   the   case   and   nature   of   injuries   sustained   by <\/p>\n
     Sanjay Wadmare and taking into consideration other facts, more <\/p>\n
     particularly   requisite   intention   to   commit   offence,   the   Trial <\/p>\n
     Court held that, the requisite intention to commit offence U\/Sec.\n<\/p>\n
     307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be gathered.  Therefore, the <\/p>\n
     Trial Court recorded the findings that the accused in furtherance <\/p>\n
     of their common intention caused voluntarily hurt with a sharp <\/p>\n
     cutting   weapon   and,   therefore,   accused   committed   an   offence <\/p>\n
     U\/Sec. 324 r\/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
            Therefore, taking into consideration over all circumstances <\/p>\n
     and evidence in the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere <\/p>\n
     in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Sessions <\/p>\n
     Judge,   Beed,   dated   02nd   August,   1999   in   Sessions   Case   No. <\/p>\n
     20\/1999.\n<\/p>\n
     12.    Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     However, taking into consideration the fact that, the appellant is <\/p>\n
     on bail for long period of 13 years and he has not misused the <\/p>\n
     bail during this period.   The Sessions Court has also recorded <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         11                              cri appeal 332.99<\/p>\n
     that, there was no intention to commit such offence U\/Sec. 307 <\/p>\n
     r\/w Sec. 34 of the I. P. Code.  The counsel for the appellant makes <\/p>\n
     statement   that,   this   is   the   only   alleged   offence   in   which   the <\/p>\n
     appellant is shown as accused.  In the facts and circumstances of <\/p>\n
     this case, the end of justice would meet, if the sentence is reduced <\/p>\n
     to already undergone period.  The appellant accused is convicted <\/p>\n
     U\/Sec. 324 r\/w Sec. 34 of I. P. Code.   Therefore, taking over all <\/p>\n
     view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the <\/p>\n
     Trial Court U\/Sec. 324 r\/w Sec. 34 is maintained, however, the <\/p>\n
     period   of   sentence   is   reduced   to   already   undergone   by   the <\/p>\n
     accused\/appellant.   There   shall   be   no   order   as   regards   the <\/p>\n
     payment of fine amount and the order of Trial Court in respect of <\/p>\n
     fine is maintained.  The accused need not be sent to the jail.  The <\/p>\n
     Sessions Court has recorded in para 2 of the operative part of the <\/p>\n
     order that the accused appellant was arrested on 25.07.1998 and <\/p>\n
     released on bail on 13.10.1998 and he was in jail for eighty days <\/p>\n
     during the pendency of trial.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          [ S. S. SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     bsb\/Jan. 11<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:47:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 cri appeal 332.99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 332 OF 1999 Shaikh Baba S\/o Shaikh Anis, Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Rickshaw Driver, R\/o Rajuri Ves, Beed. .. .. […]<\/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-59010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-21T23:57:12+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T23:57:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2110,\"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\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T23:57:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-21T23:57:12+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T23:57:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011"},"wordCount":2110,"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\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011","name":"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T23:57:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaikh-baba-vs-unknown-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shaikh Baba vs Unknown on 24 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59010","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=59010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}