{"id":60589,"date":"2011-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-06-11T23:47:05","modified_gmt":"2016-06-11T18:17:05","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: P.V. Hardas, M.N. Gilani<\/div>\n
    spb\/-\n                                              1                                      J-A239-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   239  OF   2011\n\n\n    The State of Maharashtra                                   ...     Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                                                                     (Org.Complainant)\n                 V\/s.\n\n    Rahul Ramchandra Taru                            ...      Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Age-24 yrs., Occ.-Service, R\/a. 354-                   (Org.Accused)\n    Bhoiraj Society,Sahakar Nagar No.1,\n                              \n    Pune -411 009. (in Yerwada Central Prison)\n                                              ---\n    Mr. Y.P. Yagnik, APP for the Appellant\/State.\n                             \n    Mr. S.R.Pasbola i\/by Rahul Arote for the Respondent.  \n                                              -----\n\n                          CORAM  :  P. V. HARDAS  &  M.N.GILANI,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                          DATE     :  Judgment  reserved  on   28th April, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                      Judgment pronounced on 06th May, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT  :  (PER M.N. GILANI, J.)<\/p>\n
    1       This   appeal   under   section   12   of   the   Maharashtra   Control   of
\n    Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “MCOCA”) is directed against the
\n    order dated 21.08.2008  passed by the Special Judge, Special Court, Pune <\/p>\n
    in   Special   Case   No.   2   of   2007,   whereby,   the   learned   Special   Judge
\n    discharged the respondent- accused for the offence under MCOCA.\n<\/p>\n
    2       Special   Case   No.   2\/2007   is   arising   out   of   Crime   No.   562\/2006
\n    registered with the Kothrud Police Station, Pune under sections 302, 307,
\n    143, 148, 149, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3\/25 <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                               2                                       J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    of Arms Act,    The incident occurred on 14.10.2006.  It is alleged that one
\n    Sachin   Pote   and   his   associates   attacked   one   Sandeep   Mohol   (since <\/p>\n
    deceased)  while latter was proceeding in his Scorpio Jeep.  The firearms
\n    and other deadly weapons were used by the accused while assaulting the
\n    deceased.     Sandeep Mohol  succumbed to the injuries which resulted in <\/p>\n
    registration of the crime as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
    3       The investigation  revealed that the accused are the persons of the <\/p>\n
    organised   crime   syndicate   and   therefore,   provisions   of   MCOCA   were <\/p>\n
    invoked against them.\n<\/p>\n
    4       The respondent submitted an application  vide Exh. 99, seeking  his <\/p>\n
    discharge  from the offence punishable under section 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii) and
\n    3(iv) of the MCOCA.         It was submitted   that the material placed on
\n    record   does   not   disclose   any   offence   under   the   provisions   of   MCOCA.\n<\/p>\n
    There is no evidence to show   that the respondent-accused   was at any <\/p>\n
    point of time was a member of the organized crime syndicate.  The State
\n    resisted this application.  The learned Special Judge after  considering the
\n    rival   submissions,     held   that   the   material     placed   on   record   does   not <\/p>\n
    disclose  offence punishable under the MCOCA.  He therefore, discharged
\n    the respondent-accused from the offences punishable  under the MCOCA.
\n    Being aggrieved, by this order,  the State has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    5       Learned APP  submitted that the order  of discharge  passed by the
\n    learned   Special   Judge     is   erroneous   and   inconsistent   with   the
\n    documentary evidence  placed on record.  According to him there is ample
\n    material     to   show   that   the   respondent-accused   is   a   member   of   the
\n    organized     crime   syndicate.     He   alongwith   the   other     is   involved   in <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                 3                                       J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    continuing  unlawful activity and this is evident   from  the chargesheets
\n    filed against him within preceding  period of ten years and that the court <\/p>\n
    has taken cognizance of such offence.\n<\/p>\n
    6       Similar     submissions   were     advanced   before   the   learned   Special <\/p>\n
    Judge, Special Court, Pune.   As regards  two previous chargesheets, one
\n    being Sessions Case No. 418 of 2006 under section 395, 143, 147, 148 of
\n    the IPC and other being regular Criminal Case No. 120 of 2000 under <\/p>\n
    sections 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC,   the   learned   Special <\/p>\n
    Judge       observed   that   these   offences       were   not   committed     by   the
\n    organized crime syndicate.  As regards   the allegations  in special case no.\n<\/p>\n
    02 of 2007,  the offence with which  the respondent-accused  and others
\n    have been charged have not been committed with an objective of gaining
\n    pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage to the <\/p>\n
    respondent-accused.  Therefore, he discharged the respondent-accused.\n<\/p>\n
    7       Before   we   consider   the   merits   of   the   present   case,   it   would   be
\n    appropriate  to   set  out   certain  provisions     of   the   MCOCA,   in  particular <\/p>\n
    Sections 2(d), 2(e) and  2(f) of the MCOCA  as under :\n<\/p>\n
            “Sec. 2(d).   “Continuing unlawful activity”  means an activity <\/p>\n
            prohibited   by   law   for   the   time   being   in   force,   which   is   a
\n            cognizable   offence punishable with imprisonment   of   three
\n            years   or   more,   undertaken   either   singly   or   jointly,     as   a
\n            member of an organised crime syndicate  or on behalf  of such
\n            syndicate  in respect  of  which more than  one chargesheets
\n            have     been   filed     before   a   competent     Court   within   the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-<\/p>\n
                                                 4                                      J-A239-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n            preceding     period   of   ten   years   and     that   Court     has   taken \n            cognizance  of such offence\".\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n<\/pre>\n
             “Sec.2(e) “Organised  crime” means any continuing  unlawful
\n            activity by an individual,  singly or jointly, either as a member
\n            of   an   organized     crime   syndicate     or   on   behalf   of     such <\/p>\n
            syndicate,   by   use     of   violence   or   threat   of   violence     or
\n            intimidation   or coercion, or  other unlawful means,  with the
\n            objective      of   gaining   pecuniary  benefits,  or   gaining   undue <\/p>\n
            economic or other advantage for himself or any other person <\/p>\n
            or promoting unsurgency”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “Sec. 2(f) “Organised crime syndicate”  means a group of two <\/p>\n
            or more persons who, acting either singly  or collectively, as a
\n            syndicate or gang indulge in activities  of organised  crime. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    8       Under   section   2(d)   of   MCOCA,     “continuing   unlawful   activity”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    means  an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force which is a
\n    cognizable   offence   punishable   with   imprisonment     for   three   years   or <\/p>\n
    more, undertaken either singly  or jointly, as a member  of the organized
\n    crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which   more
\n    than one chargesheets have been filed.  It is, therefore,  clear that  one or <\/p>\n
    more chargesheets, containing   allegations that the alleged offence was
\n    committed either singly or jointly as a member   of the organized crime
\n    syndicate   or   on   behalf  of  such  syndicate, is  sine  qua  non  for  invoking
\n    stringent   provisions of MCOCA.   This follows that mere filing of more
\n    than one chargesheets within the preceding  period of  ten years, alleging
\n    commission of congnizable   offence   punishable   with imprisonment of <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                              5                                     J-A239-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    three years or more, is not enough.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n    9              In   the   case   of  Ranjeetsingh   Brahmajeetsing   Sharma    Vs. \n<\/pre>\n
    State   of   Maharashtra   &   Anr.   (2005   ALL   MR   (Cri)   1538   (S.C.),   the
\n    Supreme Court observed that :\n<\/p>\n
                  “The Statement  of  Objects and Reasons clearly  states
\n                  as to why the said Act had to be enacted.   Thus it will <\/p>\n
                  be safe  to presume  that the expression ‘any unlawful
\n                  means’  must refer to any such act,  which has a direct <\/p>\n
                  nexus with the commission of a crime which the MCOC
\n                  Act seeks   to prevent or control.   In other words, an
\n                  offence  falling within the definition of organized  crime <\/p>\n
                  and  committed  by an organized crime syndicate is the
\n                  offence  contemplated by the Statement of  Objects and
\n                  Reasons.     There are offences and offences under the
\n                  Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes   providing
\n                  for punishment  of three  years  or more and in relation <\/p>\n
                  to such offences   more than  one chargesheet may be <\/p>\n
                  filed.  As we have indicated  hereinbefore, only because
\n                  a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust,
\n                  more   than   once,   the   same   by   itself     may   not   be
\n                  sufficient to attract  the provisions of MCOCA”. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    In   order   to   constitute   “continuing   unlawful   activity”   following
\n    requirements of law should be satisfied :-\n<\/p>\n
            i.     more   than   one   chargesheet,   alleging   commission   of
\n            congnizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years
\n            or more;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            ii     a   chargesheet   should   consists   of     averments,   alleging
\n            unlawful   activity   undertaken   either   singly   or   jointly   by   the
\n            accused;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                               6                                      J-A239-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n            iii      as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of  \n            such syndicate;   \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n            iv        the congnizance  of such offence is taken by the competent \n            court.\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    10      In order to   bring an alleged act within the ambit of the MCOCA, \n<\/pre>\n
    the aforementioned requirements are mandatory.  The word “in respect of
\n    which” occurring in the definition  clause of “continuing unlawful activity”\n<\/p>\n
    connotes   that   it   is   not   a   normal   chargesheet,   alleging     commission   of <\/p>\n
    congnizable offence punishable with imprisonment  of  3 years  or more.
\n    The  chargesheet     sans     allegations   that   the   alleged  act   is    undertaken <\/p>\n
    either singly  or jointly by the accused who is a member of an organized
\n    crimes syndicate or is undertaken on behalf of such syndicate, would not
\n    fall  within  the  ambit   of  the  expression  “continuing  unlawful  activity”, <\/p>\n
    occurring in  MCOCA.\n<\/p>\n
    11      In  Prafulla   s\/o. Uddhav   Shende    vs.     State of Maharasthra,
\n    (2009 ALL MR(Cri.) 870), the learned single Judge of this court while <\/p>\n
    dealing with the bunch  of appeals arising out of judgments passed by the
\n    Special Court at  Nagpur, placed reliance on the various decisions, mainly,
\n    the decision in   Ranjeetsingh   Brahmajeetsing Sharma;s case  (supra), <\/p>\n
    also made a reference to the case of  Sherbahadur Akram Khan (Supra)
\n    and observed  in paragraphs 29, 43 and 44 that :\n<\/p>\n
            “29.  Since the definitions, though intertwined in a cyclic order,
\n            are clear and unambiguous, it would follow that each ingredient
\n            in   the definitions, or the alternative  thereof provided by the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                7                                       J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
            definitions themselves, would have to be proved.  Viewed thus,
\n            for charging a person  of organised crime or being a member of <\/p>\n
            organised  crime syndicate, it would be necessary  to  prove that
\n            the  persons  concerned  have indulged in :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (i) an activity,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (ii)which is prohibited by law,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (iii)which   is   a   congnizable     offence   punishable     with
\n                    imprisonment for three years  or more,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (iv)undertaken either singly or jointly,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (v)as a member  of organised  crime syndicate i.e. acting as a
\n                    syndicate  or a gang, or on behalf of such syndicate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (vi)(a) in respect  of similar activities (in the past) more than
\n                    one   chargesheets     have   been   filed   in   competent   court
\n                    within the preceding  period of ten years,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (b) and the court has taken cognizance of such offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (vii)the activity is undertaken by :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (a)  violence, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (b) threat of violence, or intimidation or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (c) coercion or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (d) other unlawful means.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (viii)(a)   with   the   object     of   gaining   pecuniary   benefits   or <\/p>\n
                    gaining   undue   or   other   advantage     or   himself     or   any
\n                    other person, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (b) with the object  of promoting insurgency.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            “43.  This   fortifies     the   conclusion   that   mere   proof   of   filing
\n            chargesheets in the past is not enough.   It is only one of the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                8                                       J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
            requisites  for constituting offence  of organised crime.  If only
\n            the past charge-sheets  were to be enough to  constitute offence <\/p>\n
            of organised  crime, it could  have offended  the requirement of
\n            Article 20(1) of the Constitution and possibly Article 20(2) as
\n            well,   (and   in   any   case   Section   300,   Cr.P.C.).     Had   these <\/p>\n
            judgments of the Supreme Court and Division Benches of  this
\n            Court   been   cited   before   the   learned   single   Judge   deciding
\n            Amarsingh     Vs.    State  (2006  ALL   MR  (Cri.)407)  the  learned <\/p>\n
            Single   Judge,   without   doubt,   would   not   have   held   that   the <\/p>\n
            matter was simply  one of an arithmetical equation.   The said
\n            judgment cannot be reconciled  with the judgments of division <\/p>\n
            benches in Jaising   Vs.   State (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1506 and
\n            Bharat Shah   vs.   State 2003, ALL MR (Cri) 1061 which I am
\n            bound to follow.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            44.    ……………..  Therefore, since the previous criminal history <\/p>\n
            of   the   applicants   denotes     that   they   had   been   or   are   being
\n            separately     charged\/tried   for   those   offence   before   competent
\n            courts, there is no question of such offences constituting offence <\/p>\n
            of organised crime.”.    <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                   (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    12      In the present case, the prosecution   relied upon two charesheets
\n    one  relating to CR No. 113 of 2006 and the other relating to CR No.87 of
\n    2000 registered at Sahakar  Nagar Police  Station, Pune    under  sections
\n    323, 324, 506 read with section 34 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    13      In R.C. No. 87 of 2000, the complainant Ritesh in his complaint <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                               9                                      J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    dated 07.05.2000 lodged on the night  of 06.05.2000,  stated that when
\n    he intervened   in the quarrel going on between the respondent and his <\/p>\n
    associates on one hand and one Sunil on the other hand, the respondent
\n    inflicted knife blow on his fingers of left hand.    This has resulted into the
\n    filing of the  chargesheet being crime no. 129 of 2000 before the court of <\/p>\n
    Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4 ,Pune.     The respondent was
\n    acquitted in this case on 26.03.2008.   Here, we are only concerned about
\n    the filing of chargesheet on the date   when the MCOCA   was invoked.\n<\/p>\n
    The perusal of the allegations in the aforesaid chargesheet,  by no stretch <\/p>\n
    of imagination, point out that the aforesaid offence  was committed by the
\n    accused   in the capacity as a member of organized crime syndicate   or <\/p>\n
    while acting as a syndicate or a gang or on behalf of such syndicate.   It
\n    cannot be said  that such allegations has any nexus with the Statement of
\n    Objects   and   Reasons   under   the   MCOCA.     To   put   it   differently,       such <\/p>\n
    allegations do not satisfy all the mandatory requirements contemplated by <\/p>\n
    the expression “continuing unlawful activity” occurring under MCOCA.\n<\/p>\n
    14      The learned APP placed reliance   on unreported judgment in the <\/p>\n
    case  of    Ganesh   Nivrutti   Marne    vs.    The   State  of  Maharashtra<\/a>    in
\n    Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2009   decided on   07th  May, 2010.     That
\n    appeal also had arisen from the Special Case No. 02 of 2007 which was <\/p>\n
    filed by the accused no.7 whose application for discharge was rejected  by
\n    the Special Judge, Special Court, Pune.  It appears that the  appellant in
\n    the   said   case     was   operating   his   own   gang   called   as   “Ganesh   Marne
\n    Gang”.     Allegations   against   him   were   that   he   was   operating   a   crime
\n    syndicate and committed several offences of similar nature  in the past to
\n    gain an edge  over the rival gang and to achieve  supremacy in the local <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                              10                                       J-A239-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n    area.     The   Division   Bench   in   the   case   (supra)   examined   the   facts     in \n<\/pre>\n
    Special   Case   No.   2   of   2007   qua   the   appellant   before   analysing <\/p>\n
    expressions   “continuing   unlawful   activity”,   “organised   crime”   and
\n    “organized crime syndicate”.    A reference was made to the judgment  of
\n    the Division Bench  of this court in the case of Sherbahadur Akram Khan <\/p>\n
    vs.    State   of   Maharashtra<\/a>    (2007   ALL   MR   (Cri.)   1)   and   held     that
\n    Sherbahadur Akram Khan’s case  must be restricted to its own facts.   The
\n    Division   Bench   while   rejecting     appeal   laid   great   emphasis     on   the <\/p>\n
    decision   in   the   case   of    Anil   Sadashiv   Nanduskar    vs.    State   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra<\/a> [2008 (3) MAH. L.J. (CRI) 650].   In the cases of  Ganesh
\n    Nivrutti   Marne  as   well   as  Anil   Nanduskar,   the   question   which   was <\/p>\n
    addressed     by   the   Division   Bench     was   whether   expressions   “other
\n    advantage” occurring  under section 2(1)(e) are to be construed “ejusdem
\n    generis”   with the earlier   terms or it should be given wider meaning.\n<\/p>\n
    The Division Bench  in the case of Ganesh Nivrutti Marne has also made <\/p>\n
    reference to the Supreme Court decision   in     the case of  Ranjeetsingh
\n    Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) and<\/a> observed
\n    that  “the Supreme Court  has expressly  kept  this question open.”.\n<\/p>\n
    15      We propose to clarify that to address the question which is posed in
\n    this appeal, interpretation   of expressions “or other advantage” and “or <\/p>\n
    other unlawful means”, occurring   under section 2(1)(e)   of MCOCA, is
\n    not strictly  necessary.  Even if, both the terms are given wider meaning,
\n    the   prosecution   is   not   absolved   of   its   duty   to   prove   that   within   the
\n    preceding   period   of   10   years   more   than   one   chargesheets,     alleging
\n    commission of cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three
\n    years or more, have been  filed     and   further   to   prove   that   in   such <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:56 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                               11                                      J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    chargesheets, it has been alleged  that the accused either singly  or jointly
\n    and as a member    of organized crime  syndicate    or on behalf of such <\/p>\n
    syndicate     committed the unlawful activity.     This follows that merely
\n    alleging     that   more   than   one   chargesheets   in   respect   of   cognizable
\n    offence  punishable with imprisonment of three years or more have been <\/p>\n
    filed, is not  sufficient.   This does not satisfy  requirements  of law.  This
\n    is what precisely  held by the Supreme Court in the case of  Ranjeetsingh
\n    Brahmajeetsing Sharma  (supra). The unlawful activity  alleged  in the <\/p>\n
    previous   chargesheets     should   have   nexus   with   the   commission   of   the <\/p>\n
    crime   which   MCOCA   seeks   to   prevent     or   control.     An   offence   falling
\n    within the definition   of organized   crime and committed by   organized <\/p>\n
    crime syndicate is the offence contemplated by the Statement of  Objects
\n    and Reasons under the MCOCA.\n<\/p>\n
    16       On careful examination of one of the chargesheets,  which exercise <\/p>\n
    was also undertaken by the learned Special Judge,   we have reached to
\n    the conclusion that the act constituting offence was not alleged  to have
\n    been   committed     by   the   accused   as   a   member   of   organized   crime <\/p>\n
    syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.\n<\/p>\n
    17      For   the   foregoing   reasons,   we   do   not   find   any   substance   in   the <\/p>\n
    appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    18       Appeal is dismissed.\n\n\n    19      At this stage,  learned APP requests for grant of stay for four weeks \n<\/pre>\n
    in   order   to   enable   the   State   to   file   appropriate   proceedings   in   the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:15:57 :::<\/span>
\n     spb\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      12                                     J-A239-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court.   In that light of the matter, therefore, we grant stay for
\n    four weeks as requested by the learned APP.\n<\/p>\n
            [M.N.GILANI,J.]                                [P.V. HARDAS, J.]\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                                          \n                          \n                         \n       \n    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:15:57 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011 Bench: P.V. Hardas, M.N. Gilani spb\/- 1 J-A239-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra … Appellant. (Org.Complainant) V\/s. Rahul Ramchandra Taru … Respondent. Age-24 yrs., […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-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=\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-11T18:17:05+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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T18:17:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2554,\"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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T18:17:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-11T18:17:05+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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T18:17:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011"},"wordCount":2554,"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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011","name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T18:17:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-rahul-ramchandra-taru-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru on 6 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/60589","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=60589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}