{"id":60396,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-26T21:27:53","modified_gmt":"2015-10-26T15:57:53","slug":"vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: V.M. Kanade<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2010\n\n    Vijay Hariba Kadam                    )\n    Age   35 years, Occ : Service,        )\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    R\/at : Apati, Taluka Jaoli,           )\n    District Satara                       )        ...Appellant\n                                                   (Orig.Accused)\n            vs.\n\n\n\n\n                              \n    The State of Maharashtra through   )\n    Gautam Maruti Gade, PHC, B.No.1926 )\n                     \n    Medha Police Station, Taluka Jaoli,)\n    Dist Satara                        )           ...Respondent\n                    \n    Mr.Rahul Kadam for the Appellant.\n    Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                    CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                     DATED : APRIL 9, 2010<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :-\n<\/p>\n
    1       Heard Counsel for the appellant and APP for<\/p>\n
    the State.\n<\/p>\n
    2       By order dated 26th February, 2010, Brother<\/p>\n
    B.R. Gavai J. was pleased to issue notice to the<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent which was made returnable in three weeks.\n<\/p>\n
    The parties were put on notice that the appeal would<\/p>\n
    be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
    The   appellant       was    directed          to    produce          notes         of<\/p>\n
    evidence on record. Accordingly, the appellant has<\/p>\n
    filed the compilation of evidence.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    3          The    appellant        has     been      convicted            by      the\n\n    Sessions      Court\n                          \n                          for     the        offence         punishable           under\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to<\/p>\n
    undergo SI for three months and to pay fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    50,000\/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for<\/p>\n
    one   month.     He   is    also    convicted            for    the       offence<\/p>\n
    punishable       under     Section       280    of       the    IPC       and       is<\/p>\n
    sentenced to undergo SI for one month and to pay<\/p>\n
    fine of Rs.1000\/- and in default, to undergo SI for<\/p>\n
    10 days. Prosecution case in brief is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
    4          A family of four                husband, wife and their<\/p>\n
    two   minor      daughters    had        gone       on    a    tour       between<\/p>\n
    25.5.2007 to 28.5.2007 to Mahabaleshwar. There is a<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
    lake situated near Mahabaleshwar at the place called<\/p>\n
    Tapola. On the bank of the said lake, there is a<\/p>\n
    boat club known as Shivsagar Boat club. On 28th May,<\/p>\n
    2007 at about 4 p.m., they had gone for boating in<\/p>\n
    the said lake. They paid hire charges Rs.380\/- and<\/p>\n
    hired boat no.38. The accused               appellant herein was<\/p>\n
    in-charge of the said boat. At the relevant time,<\/p>\n
    after they hired the boat, it started raining and<\/p>\n
    since the boat no.38 did not have any roof, they<\/p>\n
    inquired with the accused whether he could arrange<\/p>\n
    for a boat having a roof. Accordingly, the accused<\/p>\n
    asked the complainant Prejal Doshi and his family to<\/p>\n
    sit in boat no.1 which had roof and thereafter with<\/p>\n
    the help of PW-3 Ganesh Kadam removed the engine<\/p>\n
    from boat no.38 and installed it in boat no.1 and<\/p>\n
    thereafter, he took the said boat in the lake. At<\/p>\n
    some    point   of   time,   due       to   heavy       turbulence              on<\/p>\n
    account of strong wind and as a result, the boat<\/p>\n
    capsized.   However,       three       members     of      the          family<\/p>\n
    could   survive,     but   their       youngest       daughter             of     5<\/p>\n
    years of age died in the said incident and her body<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
    was found after two hours. Initially, an accidental<\/p>\n
    case    was    recorded     by    the     police       and       thereafter,<\/p>\n
    further       inquiry    was     made.    Inquest          panchnama             was<\/p>\n
    prepared and dead body was referred for post mortem.\n<\/p>\n
    Spot panchnama was prepared. A sketch was also drawn<\/p>\n
    by     the     police     Head       Constable.          Statements                of<\/p>\n
    witnesses were recorded. A notice under Section 209<\/p>\n
    of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    A complaint was lodged in which it was alleged that<\/p>\n
    the accused failed to provide life jackets to the<\/p>\n
    complainant or did not make proper arrangements for<\/p>\n
    the safety while driving the boat in the said lake.\n<\/p>\n
    Initially, offence under Section 304-A of the IPC<\/p>\n
    was    registered.       Further     investigation             was       carried<\/p>\n
    out.    Charge     sheet       was   filed      and       offence            under<\/p>\n
    Sections 280, 304 of the IPC was added in the place<\/p>\n
    of     offence      under        Section        304-A.                   Charge,<\/p>\n
    accordingly,       was     framed        for   the        said         offence.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 5<\/p>\n
    witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused and<\/p>\n
    sentenced him to suffer SI for three months for the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    offence under Section 304 Part II and also asked him<\/p>\n
    to pay fine of Rs.50,000\/- and sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
    SI for one month for offence under Section 280 of<\/p>\n
    the IPC and he was asked to pay fine of Rs.1000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    and in default, to undergo further SI for 10 days.\n<\/p>\n
    5         Counsel       for   the       appellant      submitted             that<\/p>\n
    the    trial     court    had       erred    in       convicting               the<\/p>\n
    appellant for the aforesaid offences. He submitted<\/p>\n
    that from the testimony of the complainant and the<\/p>\n
    testimony of the other witnesses, it was apparent<\/p>\n
    that the said incident which had taken place on that<\/p>\n
    day was purely accident and the appellant could not<\/p>\n
    be held to be responsible, in any way, for the said<\/p>\n
    accident and death of the minor girl. He submitted<\/p>\n
    that   the     PW-3   Ganesh    Kadam       in    his      evidence            had<\/p>\n
    clearly      admitted    that       the    accused\/appellant                   had<\/p>\n
    provided life jackets to the said family, however,<\/p>\n
    they refused to put on the said life jackets. He<\/p>\n
    further submitted that the learned trial court had<\/p>\n
    proceeded on the said footing that the appellant had<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    taken    the   boat    in     the        lake   and       the       water         was<\/p>\n
    disturbed at that time. He submitted that the trial<\/p>\n
    court, therefore, proceeded with erroneous footing<\/p>\n
    that the water was disturbed wherein the fact that<\/p>\n
    one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has<\/p>\n
    deposed that the said water was not disturbed. He<\/p>\n
    submitted      that    none     of       the    ingredients               of      the<\/p>\n
    offence under Section 304 Part II was made out by<\/p>\n
    the prosecution case. He further submitted that the<\/p>\n
    provisions of Section 280 of IPC also not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
    6         The learned APP appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    State,    on    the    other        hand,       submitted            that         the<\/p>\n
    appellant was aware that it was raining at that time<\/p>\n
    and even then, he proceeded to take the boat in the<\/p>\n
    said lake. It was submitted that he had knowledge<\/p>\n
    that on account of rain and disturbance of water,<\/p>\n
    there was possibility of accident. She invited my<\/p>\n
    attention to the evidence of PW-2                            Prejal Doshi,<\/p>\n
    Informant      and    the     father       of    the       deceased.              She<\/p>\n
    submitted that the said evidence along with evidence<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
    of    other    witness   clearly       established              that         the<\/p>\n
    appellant had committed the said offence.\n<\/p>\n
    7           I have heard both the learned Counsel at<\/p>\n
    length.       I have given my anxious consideration to<\/p>\n
    the evidence which is brought on record. In my view,<\/p>\n
    there is no evidence to show that the appellant has<\/p>\n
    committed the offence under Section 304 Part II or<\/p>\n
    under Section 280 of the IPC. The prosecution has<\/p>\n
    examined five witnesses. PW 1 – Gautam Maruti Gade<\/p>\n
    who    is     Head   Constable       who   recorded             the        said<\/p>\n
    statement. PW 2 is the father of the deceased and<\/p>\n
    complainant Prejal Doshi. PW 3 is another witness<\/p>\n
    who was in another boat at the relevant time. PW 4<\/p>\n
    is hotel owner who has his hotel at one of the banks<\/p>\n
    of the lake. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer. PW 1<\/p>\n
    in his evidence has recorded that report at Exhibit<\/p>\n
    9.    He initially registered a case of accidental<\/p>\n
    death and informed the Medha Police Station and the<\/p>\n
    preliminary report was prepared at Exhibit 10. He<\/p>\n
    visited the spot of occurrence and directed inquest<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
    panchnama which is at Exhibit 11. The dead body of<\/p>\n
    the deceased girl was handed over for post mortem<\/p>\n
    for examination. He also recorded the statement of<\/p>\n
    witnesses. He prepared the spot panchnama in the<\/p>\n
    presence of panch witness and also prepared a rough<\/p>\n
    sketch. The said panchnama is produced on record at<\/p>\n
    Exhibits 12 and 13. Notice was given to the accused.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    The   said    notice   is     at   Exhibit     15.       He      thereafter\n\n    lodged      the\n                        \n                      complaint    which   is     at      Exhibit           17 and\n\n<\/pre>\n
    registered initially offence under Section 304-A of<\/p>\n
    the IPC vide C.R.No.36\/2007. Further investigation<\/p>\n
    was carried out by PI Patil. This witness came at<\/p>\n
    the scene after the dead body of the minor girl was<\/p>\n
    found and was kept on the floor. He, therefore, was<\/p>\n
    not eye witness to the said incident but has carried<\/p>\n
    out the initial inquiry. PW2 is the eye witness to<\/p>\n
    the said incident who is the father of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
    He    has     narrated      the     said      incident.               In       his<\/p>\n
    examination-in-chief, he has stated that the accused<\/p>\n
    had asked them to sit in boat no.38 which did not<\/p>\n
    have a roof.         He has further stated that he had<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
    asked for life jacket, however, the accused told<\/p>\n
    them that water was not deep and therefore, they<\/p>\n
    should not worry.       He has further stated that after<\/p>\n
    the boat started sailing, it started raining and<\/p>\n
    therefore, the accused took the boat near other bank<\/p>\n
    at which place there was a boat which had a roof.\n<\/p>\n
    The accused had asked them to sit in that boat which<\/p>\n
    had a roof and he removed engine from the said                           boat<\/p>\n
    and installed it in the boat having roof. According<\/p>\n
    to     him,    one   person     helped       the         accused             in<\/p>\n
    installation of engine in the other boat who had<\/p>\n
    come    on     the   water    scooter.      The         said         person<\/p>\n
    thereafter left on his water scooter in a speed.                             PW<\/p>\n
    2 has stated that the accused also followed him on<\/p>\n
    the water scooter in high speed and though PW 2<\/p>\n
    asked him to sail the boat in slow speed, he did not<\/p>\n
    pay any heed to his request. The boat capsized in<\/p>\n
    the said lake.        They were rescued by the scooter<\/p>\n
    boat riders and the others who came there and put<\/p>\n
    them in another boat and took them to the bank of<\/p>\n
    the    lake.     However,     his   younger        daughter            Misty<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
    could not be traced and her dead body was found<\/p>\n
    after two hours. In the cross-examination, however,<\/p>\n
    the contradiction made by him in his first statement<\/p>\n
    was brought on record and it was marked as                             A     from<\/p>\n
    his report at Exhibit 9. The defence, therefore, was<\/p>\n
    not   in   a    position    to     bring    on     record          that        the<\/p>\n
    witness had not stated before the police that he had<\/p>\n
    asked    for    life     jackets    and    the     accused           did       not<\/p>\n
    provide the life jackets to them. He had further<\/p>\n
    admitted that some other statements, which he had<\/p>\n
    raised     in    the     court,     were    not        found          in       the<\/p>\n
    statements which were made by him before the police.\n<\/p>\n
    PW-3 Ganesh Kadam was also working as boat driver in<\/p>\n
    the said club and he has narrated the sequence of<\/p>\n
    events.        In his cross-examination, he has admitted<\/p>\n
    that the accused had asked the complainant and his<\/p>\n
    family to put on the life jackets, however, they had<\/p>\n
    refused    to     wear    the    said     jackets.         PW-4        Prakash<\/p>\n
    Dhanawade, is the Hotel owner having a hotel on the<\/p>\n
    bank of the said lake. He has merely stated that the<\/p>\n
    accused     was     driving        the     said       boat          and        the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
    complainant and his family members fell in the lake<\/p>\n
    after    the    boat     was   toppled.       PW-5       Investigating<\/p>\n
    Officer Shivaji Patil who carried out investigation<\/p>\n
    after    initial       investigation     made      by      Police          Head<\/p>\n
    Constable. From the evidence which is adduced by the<\/p>\n
    prosecution and more particularly, eye witness PW-2,<\/p>\n
    it clearly discloses that lot of improvements have<\/p>\n
    been made by him in his evidence before the court.\n<\/p>\n
    The said improvement has been brought on record. He<\/p>\n
    has also admitted that some of the statements which<\/p>\n
    he had made before the court were not recorded by<\/p>\n
    the police in the complaint. From this evidence, it<\/p>\n
    cannot be said that the appellant has committed an<\/p>\n
    offence under Section 304 Part 2 or Section 280 of<\/p>\n
    the IPC. There is no dispute about the sequence of<\/p>\n
    events   and    even     the   accused    has     admitted            in his<\/p>\n
    statement      under    Section    313   as     to      what       actually<\/p>\n
    transpired on that day. The learned Sessions Court,<\/p>\n
    however, appears to have proceeded on the footing<\/p>\n
    that the water in the lake was disturbed and in<\/p>\n
    spite of the disturbance in the water, the appellant<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
    proceeded to take his boat in the said lake and<\/p>\n
    therefore,       acted    negligently         and      had        failed          to<\/p>\n
    provide    life     jackets   to        the   family        of      PW-2        and<\/p>\n
    therefore, acted negligently and had not taken any<\/p>\n
    precaution while taking the boat in the disturbed<\/p>\n
    water and thus, had the knowledge that it was likely<\/p>\n
    to cause death.          This can been seen from the points<\/p>\n
    which     have    been     framed       for    determination.                   The<\/p>\n
    learned Sessions has framed the following points for<\/p>\n
    determination :-\n<\/p>\n
               POINTS                                        FINDINGS<\/p>\n
    1.   Whether the accused rashly
\n         or negligently navigated boat
\n         in disturbed water, without<\/p>\n
         taking due precaution and
\n         endangered human lives?                                     Yes<\/p>\n
    2    Whether the accused committed<\/p>\n
         culpable homicide of Miss.\n<\/p>\n
         Misty Prejal Doshi, aged 5
\n         years, by navigating the boat
\n         in disturbed water, without
\n         taking precaution for her
\n         safety and with knowledge
\n         that it was likely to cause<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
         death, but without intention
\n         to cause her death?                                    Yes<\/p>\n
    3    What order?                           As per final order<\/p>\n
    8        It is pertinent to note that none of the<\/p>\n
    witnesses stated that the water was disturbed. It is<\/p>\n
    not the prosecution case that the boat was taken in<\/p>\n
    the lake when there was disturbance in the water. PW<\/p>\n
    2, on the other hand, hired the boat after having<\/p>\n
    paid hire charges of Rs.380\/-. The appellant was in-\n<\/p>\n
    charge of one of the boats. PW-2 has stated that<\/p>\n
    initially   when     the   boat    was   hired,          it      was       not<\/p>\n
    raining and only after they sat in the boat and<\/p>\n
    travelled   at   a   distance,     thereafter,             it      started<\/p>\n
    raining. PW-2 in his statement has stated as follows<\/p>\n
    :-\n<\/p>\n
                     We reached Tapola by about
\n             4.00 p.m. We hired Boar bearing No.38<\/p>\n
             by paying hire charges of Rs.380\/- to
\n             Shivsagar Boat Club. The accused
\n             sitting     before   the  court   was
\n             incharge of the said Boat. He made us
\n             to sit in the said Boat. That Boat
\n             was not having roof. When we asked
\n             for life-jacket, the accused replied<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
               that the water was not so deep and
\n               that we should not worry. After our
\n               boat started sailing, rain started.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Therefore, the accused took our boat
\n               near the other bank, where boat<\/p>\n
               having roof was there.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9          Thus, it is not the case of the complainant<\/p>\n
    that when they sailed in the boat, it was raining.\n<\/p>\n
    On   the   contrary,        after   the    boat        sailed          at      some<\/p>\n
    distance, thereafter it started raining. Secondly,<\/p>\n
    the complainant had paid for the hire charges to the<\/p>\n
    boat   club    and     he    was    allotted         boat        no.38.          The<\/p>\n
    appellant      had    no    other    option        but       to      take        the<\/p>\n
    passenger     who     had   booked       and   paid        hire        charges.\n<\/p>\n
    Secondly, this witness, in fact, does not state that<\/p>\n
    when   the     boat     started      sailing,           the       water          was<\/p>\n
    turbulent or that there was heavy rain or wind at<\/p>\n
    that   time.         The    Sessions      Judge,         therefore,              has<\/p>\n
    proceeded on the footing that there was turbulence<\/p>\n
    in the water of the lake and in spite of that, the<\/p>\n
    appellant had taken the family of PW-2 to his boat<\/p>\n
    and therefore, acted negligently and had not taken<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
    any     safety       precautions.             It       is      difficult               to<\/p>\n
    understand as to how the learned Sessions Judge has<\/p>\n
    drawn       this     inference.             The        said        observation,<\/p>\n
    therefore, is not borne out by the record. Secondly,<\/p>\n
    it    has    been    established            that       the     appellant             had<\/p>\n
    offered       life    jackets          to     PW-2      and       his        family,<\/p>\n
    however, they declined to take those life jackets.\n<\/p>\n
    Though PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has stated<\/p>\n
    that he had asked for the life jacket and that the<\/p>\n
    accused had not supplied those jackets to them by<\/p>\n
    telling them that the water is not very deep,                                          in<\/p>\n
    the cross-examination, it has come on record that he<\/p>\n
    had not made that statement before the police and<\/p>\n
    therefore, it has been established that the said<\/p>\n
    statement      made       by    PW-2    before         the     court         was       an<\/p>\n
    improvement to the earlier statement made before the<\/p>\n
    police. On the other hand, PW-3 Ganesh Kadam in his<\/p>\n
    cross-examination              has    clearly      admitted            that        life<\/p>\n
    jackets were there in boat no.38 and the accused had<\/p>\n
    asked       PW-2    and    his       family       to    put      on      the       life<\/p>\n
    jackets, however, they refused to do so. PW-2 in his<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
    cross has stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                        It is true to say that                     four\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                live-jackets were there in Boat                     No.\n                38. At that time, the accused                       had\n                asked tourists to put-on the                       said\n                live-jackets,    but   tourists                     had\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                refused to use the same.\n\n\n    10          From the evidence of PW-3, therefore, it is\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n<\/pre>\n
    evident that the appellant had taken due care and<\/p>\n
    precaution     and<\/p>\n
                          it   cannot      be   said      that        he      acted<\/p>\n
    negligently. PW-4 was also an independent witness<\/p>\n
    who was examined by the prosecution. He has stated<\/p>\n
    that he was present in his hotel and he had seen<\/p>\n
    that in the boat had toppled in front of his hotel.\n<\/p>\n
    He does not, however, give any particulars of what<\/p>\n
    transpired before the incident had taken place.                                 He<\/p>\n
    also not stated that the water was turbulent. The<\/p>\n
    only eye witness to the entire incident, therefore,<\/p>\n
    is   PW-2    and     he    has   not    established              that         the<\/p>\n
    appellant had acted either in negligent manner or<\/p>\n
    was driving the boat in rash and negligent manner or<\/p>\n
    was responsible for the death of his daughter.                                  In<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
    my     view,    therefore,       the   prosecution                has        not<\/p>\n
    established          beyond   reasonable        doubt          that          the<\/p>\n
    appellant has committed the said offence punishable<\/p>\n
    under Section 304 Part II or 280 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    11             The    judgment   and   order        passed           by      the<\/p>\n
    Sessions Court, therefore, is set aside. The appeal<\/p>\n
    filed by the appellant is allowed. The appellant is<\/p>\n
    acquitted of the charges which are levelled against<\/p>\n
    him.\n<\/p>\n
    12        The appeal, accordingly, is allowed in the<\/p>\n
    aforesaid terms and disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (V.M. KANADE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:50:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010 Bench: V.M. Kanade 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2010 Vijay Hariba Kadam ) Age 35 years, Occ : Service, ) R\/at : Apati, Taluka Jaoli, ) District Satara ) […]<\/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-60396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 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\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-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=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-26T15:57:53+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-26T15:57:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2755,\"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\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-26T15:57:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 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":"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 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\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-26T15:57:53+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-26T15:57:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":2755,"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\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010","name":"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-26T15:57:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-hariba-kadam-vs-medha-police-station-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijay Hariba Kadam vs Medha Police Station on 9 April, 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\/60396","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=60396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}