{"id":63998,"date":"2008-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-25T20:55:29","modified_gmt":"2018-11-25T15:25:29","slug":"lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Ranjana Desai, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud<\/div>\n
                                                 1\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.150 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n    Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte,\n    Age 27 years, Occ.Labour,\n    R\/o.Budhwar Peth, Solapur.                             ...Appellant.\n                            Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    The State of Maharashtra.                               ...Respondent.  \n                                    ....\n                                    \n    Shri Abhaykumar  Apte for the Appellant.\n    Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP  for the Respondent.\n                                   \n                                    .....\n                                    CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & \n                                            DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,  JJ.\n            \n\n                                                  August  5, 2008.\n         \n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.): \n<\/pre>\n
                 The Appellant, together with his brother and mother, was<\/p>\n
    tried   for   offences   punishable  under   Section   498A  and  Section   302<\/p>\n
    read   with   Section   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code.     The   Additional<\/p>\n
    Sessions   Judge   at   Solapur,   by   his   judgment   dated   17th  December<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2004 convicted the Appellant for offences under Sections   302 and<\/p>\n
    498A; in respect of the former, the Appellant has been sentenced to<\/p>\n
    imprisonment  for  life  and in  respect of  the  latter,  to  suffer   rigorous<\/p>\n
    imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- and in<\/p>\n
    default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.  The other two<\/p>\n
    accused have been acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
    2.<\/p>\n
                The Appellant and the deceased, Sridevi, were married for<\/p>\n
    12 years.  The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was being<\/p>\n
    harassed   and   ill-treated   as   a   child   had   not   been   born   from   the<\/p>\n
    wedlock.   The Appellant and the deceased resided together in their<\/p>\n
    matrimonial home at Solapur.   The incident took place at 3 a.m. on<\/p>\n
    28th February 2004; the case of the prosecution being that there was<\/p>\n
    an altercation during the course of which the   deceased was told to<\/p>\n
    leave the matrimonial home on account of her inability to bear a child.\n<\/p>\n
    The deceased refused to do so upon which her clothes were doused<\/p>\n
    with kerosene and she was set alight by the Appellant.   Sridevi was<\/p>\n
    brought to the Casualty Section of the Civil Hospital at Solapur by the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Appellant and his brother at 4.05 a.m.   She was examined by P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    10, Dr.Ghorpade to whom she furnished her history and stated that<\/p>\n
    the Appellant had poured Kerosene on her and set her on fire.  Since<\/p>\n
    the   victim   had   suffered   burns,   she   was   shifted   from   the   Casualty<\/p>\n
    Section     to   the   Burns   Ward   where   she   was   examined   by<\/p>\n
    Dr.Gunjotikar, P.W. 9.   Sridevi’
\n                                    s dying declaration   was recorded by<\/p>\n
    ASI   Gaigavli.     Dr.Gunjotikar,   P.W.   9,   made   an   endorsement   both<\/p>\n
    before and after the statement that the patient was conscious and in a<\/p>\n
    position to make the statement.     ASI Gaigavli issued a letter to a<\/p>\n
    Special Judicial Magistrate to record her dying declaration.  The dying<\/p>\n
    declaration   of   Sridevi   was   accordingly   recorded   by   the   Special<\/p>\n
    Judicial Magistrate, P.W. 1 S.G. Mangoli at 6 a.m.   In both the dying<\/p>\n
    declarations,   the  victim  implicated   the   Appellant,   though   in   the<\/p>\n
    second,   a   role   was   also   ascribed   to   the   mother-in-law   and   to   the<\/p>\n
    Appellant’
\n             s   brother.     A   spot   panchanama   was   prepared   in   the<\/p>\n
    presence of panchas and amongst the articles recovered from the site<\/p>\n
    of the incident were a stove, a half burnt turkish towel, a half burnt<\/p>\n
    gunny bag, burnt pieces of clothes and a match box.  The Appellant<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    was arrested on 24th February 2004.  Sridevi died at the Civil Hospital<\/p>\n
    on 29th February 2004. The brother of the Appellant   and his mother<\/p>\n
    were arrested on 28th February 2004 and 5th March 2004 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          All   the   three   accused,   including   the   Appellant,   were<\/p>\n
    committed   to  trial  for  offences punishable  under  Section  498A  and<\/p>\n
    Section 302 read with Section   34 of the Indian Penal Code.   The<\/p>\n
    principal witnesses who deposed on behalf of the prosecution were,<\/p>\n
    S.G. Mangoli (PW 1)   who was the Special Judicial Magistrate, who<\/p>\n
    recorded the dying declaration of Sridevi; U.D. Gaigavli (PW 4), who<\/p>\n
    was  the  ASI  at  Fauzdar Chavdi  Police  Station;  Dr.  S.A. Gunjotikar<\/p>\n
    (PW 9), who was the resident doctor on duty at the Surgical Ward at<\/p>\n
    the   Civil   Hospital;   the   father   of   the   deceased   (PW   6),   who   turned<\/p>\n
    hostile; and Dr. A.S. Ghorpade (PW 10), who was a Medical Officer<\/p>\n
    on duty at the Civil Hospital at Solapur.    The prosecution examined<\/p>\n
    ten witnesses.  The defence was that Sridevi had committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
    The Additional Sessions Judge at Solapur convicted the Appellant of<\/p>\n
    offences   under   Sections     302   and   498A   of   the   Penal   Code.     The<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Appellant’
\n             s mother and brother have been acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          On behalf of the Appellant, the following submissions have<\/p>\n
    been urged  in  order to  assail the correctness of  the  judgment  and<\/p>\n
    order of conviction:\n<\/p>\n
                .(i)   No   thumb   impression   or   signature   of   the   victim   was<\/p>\n
    obtained   on   the   medical  papers  when   she   furnished  her  history  to<\/p>\n
    Dr.Ghorpade (PW 10); (ii) There is a discrepancy in timings;   PW 9<\/p>\n
    who was the Medical Officer, deposed that  the victim was brought in<\/p>\n
    at   the   Burns   Ward   at   6.15   a.m.     There   is   no   endorsement   in   the<\/p>\n
    medico legal case papers that he had examined the victim at 5.30<\/p>\n
    a.m. and therefore, his presence was doubtful; (iii) The recording of<\/p>\n
    the dying declaration  by the Special  Judicial Magistrate,  P.W. 1, is<\/p>\n
    stated to have commenced at 6 a.m. and to have been completed at<\/p>\n
    6.05 a.m. The Medical Officer, however, stated that   the victim was<\/p>\n
    brought in the Burns Ward at 6.15 a.m.   Hence prior to that there was<\/p>\n
    no occasion for the dying declaration to be recorded; (v) Two dying<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
    declarations of the victim were recorded, the first at 5.30 a.m. and the<\/p>\n
    second   at   6   a.m.       The   second   dying   declaration   contained   an<\/p>\n
    improvement since the first dying declaration had not implicated the<\/p>\n
    brother and the mother of the Appellant. The evidentiary value of the<\/p>\n
    dying declaration is cast in doubt as a result of the improvement made<\/p>\n
    in the second of the two dying declarations; (vi)   The father of the<\/p>\n
    deceased has not supported the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          On the other hand, the Learned APP  submitted that  in the<\/p>\n
    present  case,  both  the   dying  declarations  implicated  the  Appellant,<\/p>\n
    who   was   the   husband   of   the   deceased.       In   the   second   dying<\/p>\n
    declaration the victim had also implicated the other two accused, who<\/p>\n
    were as a result, acquitted by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
    That however, is no ground to disbelieve the dying declarations in so<\/p>\n
    far   as     they   consistently   implicate   the   Appellant.     Both   the   dying<\/p>\n
    declarations bear an endorsement of the Medical Officer who found<\/p>\n
    that   the   victim   was   conscious   and   in   a   fit   condition   to   make   a<\/p>\n
    statement.     That   apart,   it   was   submitted   that   the   victim   had   also<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    furnished her history to P.W. 10, Dr.Ghorpade, who recorded it in the<\/p>\n
    OPD papers.  Reliance was also placed on the spot panchanama and<\/p>\n
    on the report of the Chemical Analyser according to which a residue<\/p>\n
    of kerosene was found on the articles recovered.   It was urged that<\/p>\n
    there   was   no   reason   to   impute   any   motive   either   to   the   Medical<\/p>\n
    Officer or to the Special Judicial Magistrate, the latter having recorded<\/p>\n
    one of the dying declarations.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The incident in question occurred on 28th  February 2004.\n<\/p>\n
    The victim Sridevi, who was the spouse of the Appellant was brought<\/p>\n
    to   the  Civil  Hospital  at   Solapur   at   4  a.m.   with   burn   injuries  by  the<\/p>\n
    Appellant   and   his   brother.       P.W.   10,   Dr.Ghorpade,   examined   the<\/p>\n
    victim Sridevi furnished her history to the examining doctor.   P.W. 10<\/p>\n
    recorded in the OPD papers that he had been informed by the patient<\/p>\n
    that   her   husband     (the   Appellant   before   the   Court)   had   poured<\/p>\n
    kerosene on her and had set her on fire.   During the course of his<\/p>\n
    deposition, P.W. 10 stated that the victim was brought to the Hospital<\/p>\n
    at 4.05 a.m. with burns and while giving the history, she stated that<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    her husband had poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire.\n<\/p>\n
    The OPD papers were marked in evidence as Exh.45.  On behalf of<\/p>\n
    the   Appellant,   doubt   was   sought   to   be   cast   on   the   authenticity   of<\/p>\n
    Exh.45 on the ground that the OPD papers were not signed by the<\/p>\n
    victim,   nor   did   they   bear   her   thumb   impression.     This   submission<\/p>\n
    cannot   carry   any   weight.     OPD   papers   at   the   Civil   Hospital   which<\/p>\n
    contain a record of the   medical history, examination and treatment<\/p>\n
    administered to a patient, are not required to be signed by the patient.\n<\/p>\n
    But quite apart from Exh.45, the case of the prosecution is based on<\/p>\n
    the two dying declarations, namely, (i) Exh.22 which was the dying<\/p>\n
    declaration   recorded  by   ASI   Gaigavli   (PW  4)  at  5.30   a.m.;   and  (ii)<\/p>\n
    Exh.12   which   was   the   dying   declaration   recorded   by   the   Special<\/p>\n
    Judicial Magistrate (PW 1) at 6 a.m. <\/p>\n
    7.          The first dying declaration which was recorded by P.W. 4 at<\/p>\n
    5.30 a.m. contains an endorsement by Dr.Gunjotikar (PW 9) to the<\/p>\n
    effect   that   the   patient   was   conscious   and   in   a   position   to   give   a<\/p>\n
    statement.     Dr.Gunjotikar   deposed   that   he   was   present   throughout<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
    when the statement was being recorded.   In the course of the first<\/p>\n
    dying declaration, Sridevi stated that she was being ill-treated by the<\/p>\n
    Appellant and by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law since she had<\/p>\n
    not been able to bear a child.  She then stated that  the Appellant was<\/p>\n
    calling   upon   her   to   go   back   to   her   parental   home   which   she   had<\/p>\n
    declined to do.   The Appellant is stated to have picked up a quarrel<\/p>\n
    with the victim and once again asked her to go back to her parental<\/p>\n
    home.     The   victim   stated   that   she   had   declined   to   leave   her<\/p>\n
    matrimonial home.   Thereupon, according to her, her mother-in-law<\/p>\n
    and brother-in-law had called her a barren woman and abused her.\n<\/p>\n
    The Appellant is stated to have poured kerosene over her body and to<\/p>\n
    have set her on fire.  As a result, she stated that  she had sustained<\/p>\n
    burn   injuries   on   her   head,   chest,   hands,   legs   and   stomach.     The<\/p>\n
    incident took place, according to the victim, at or about 3 a.m.   The<\/p>\n
    second   dying   declaration   was   recorded   by   PW   1,   S.G.   Mangoli,<\/p>\n
    Special Judicial Magistrate at 6 a.m. and contains an endorsement of<\/p>\n
    the doctor, P.W. 9, to the effect that  the victim was conscious and in<\/p>\n
    a   position   to   furnish   a   statement.     The   second   dying   declaration<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
    implicated, in addition to the Appellant, the mother and the brother of<\/p>\n
    the Appellant as being involved in the act of dousing kerosene on the<\/p>\n
    victim and setting her on fire.   The first dying declaration, as noted<\/p>\n
    earlier, stated that it was the Appellant who had  poured kerosene and<\/p>\n
    set fire to her.   That   was the circumstance which weighed with the<\/p>\n
    Learned Additional Sessions Judge in acquitting the brother and the<\/p>\n
    mother of the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        On behalf of  the Appellant,  it  has been urged  before the<\/p>\n
    Court that   the improvement which was made in the course of the<\/p>\n
    subsequent declaration would cast a serious doubt on the evidentiary<\/p>\n
    value of the two dying declarations, in so far as   they implicate the<\/p>\n
    Appellant.  We do not find any valid reason to accept the submission.\n<\/p>\n
    Both the dying declarations, it may be noted, are consistent in so far<\/p>\n
    as   the role that has been played by the Appellant is concerned.   In<\/p>\n
    both the dying declarations the victim has consistently maintained that<\/p>\n
    there was  a quarrel during the course of which, it was the Appellant,<\/p>\n
    who had set fire to her after dousing her with kerosene.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.          The   law   attributes   a   degree   of   sanctity   to   a   dying<\/p>\n
    declaration.  The basis of the principle is that in the ordinary course of<\/p>\n
    human events, it is unlikely that a dying person would make an untrue<\/p>\n
    statement when confronted with the imminence of death.  At the same<\/p>\n
    time, the law is cognisant of the fact  that the maker of the statement,<\/p>\n
    when the statement is contained in the form of a dying declaration, is<\/p>\n
    unavailable   to   face   the   rigours   of   cross-examination.     A   dying<\/p>\n
    declaration   is,   therefore,     assessed   as   an   independent   piece   of<\/p>\n
    evidence and  can be acted upon, even without corroboration,  if it is<\/p>\n
    found   to   be   trustworthy   and   reliable.       The   principles   which   must<\/p>\n
    govern the underlying approach of the Court in such a case are well<\/p>\n
    settled.  The law does not mandate that there should be a plurality of<\/p>\n
    dying declarations.  Where there is more than one dying declaration,<\/p>\n
    the first in point of time is ordinarily to be preferred (reference may be<\/p>\n
    made in this connection   to the judgments of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
    Balbir   Singh   vs.   State   of   Punjab1  and  Bapu   vs.   State   of<\/p>\n
    1 2006 AIR SCW 4950<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    Maharashtra.2<\/p>\n
    10.         During the course of her two dying declarations, the victim<\/p>\n
    stated that she had been ill-treated by the Appellant on account of her<\/p>\n
    inability to bear a child.  Both the dying declarations are consistent in<\/p>\n
    the   elaboration   which   they   contain   of   the   role   of   the   Appellant   in<\/p>\n
    causing the death of the victim.  The dying declarations can safely be<\/p>\n
    acted upon as a trustworthy and reliable piece of evidence.    Both the<\/p>\n
    dying declarations contain an endorsement of the Medical Officer (PW<\/p>\n
    9) to the effect that the victim was conscious and was in a fit condition<\/p>\n
    of mind to make a statement.  There was no reason for either of the<\/p>\n
    two doctors or for the Special Judicial Magistrate to depose falsely.\n<\/p>\n
    Absolutely no reason has been suggested to impute any motive to<\/p>\n
    PW 1, PW 9 or PW 10.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         The panchanama of 28th  February 2004 (Exh.29)   records<\/p>\n
    the recovery of an iron Stove with a residue of kerosene, a partially<\/p>\n
    2 2006 AIR SCW 5911<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
    burnt turkish towel, pieces of burnt clothes and a match box.   The<\/p>\n
    report of the Chemical Analyser of 30th  July 2004 (Exh.30) found a<\/p>\n
    residue of kerosene on the iron Stove, the turkish towel, on the burnt<\/p>\n
    pieces of clothes  and on a full shirt, chadder, sari and blouse.\n<\/p>\n
    12.        A submission was sought to be built upon by relying upon<\/p>\n
    the difference in timings at which the dying declarations were alleged<\/p>\n
    to have been recorded and it was urged that  PW 9 had deposed that<\/p>\n
    the victim was brought in at 6.15 a.m. at the Burns Ward.  Hence, it<\/p>\n
    was sought to be submitted that prior to this, there was no occasion to<\/p>\n
    record  the  dying  declaration.   It  was also urged that there  was no<\/p>\n
    endorsement   in   the   medico   legal   case   papers   that   the   victim   was<\/p>\n
    examined   at   5.30   a.m.       The   submission,   however,   cannot   be<\/p>\n
    accepted.  The victim was initially brought to the Casualty Section of<\/p>\n
    the Civil Hospital.  PW 9, the doctor who was on duty in the Surgical<\/p>\n
    Ward, stated that the victim was brought  to the Casualty Department<\/p>\n
    at 4.05 a.m. PW 10, who was on duty in the Casualty Department of<\/p>\n
    the Civil Hospital also stated that the victim was brought in at 4.05<\/p>\n
    a.m. when she furnished the case history.  The first dying declaration<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
    was recorded at 5.30 a.m by P.W. 4 while the second was recorded at<\/p>\n
    6 a.m. by P.W. 1.  There is absolutely no justifiable reason to discard<\/p>\n
    the authenticity of the dying declarations.   In any event the alleged<\/p>\n
    discrepancies of timing to which a reference has been made in the<\/p>\n
    course of submissions are of a minor nature and do not detract from<\/p>\n
    the trustworthiness or reliability of the two dying declarations.\n<\/p>\n
    13.<\/p>\n
                Before concluding, it would be necessary to record that the<\/p>\n
    father   of   the   deceased,   Bhimsha   Irkal   (PW   6),   turned   hostile.\n<\/p>\n
    However, during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that<\/p>\n
    the Appellant was addicted to liquor  and that he used to ill-treat the<\/p>\n
    victim by beating her under the influence of alcohol.  The prosecution,<\/p>\n
    it   must,   however,   be   emphasized,   has   proved   its   case   beyond<\/p>\n
    reasonable doubt quite independent of the evidence of PW 6.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         For all these reasons, we are of the view that there is no<\/p>\n
    merit   in   the   submissions   which   have   been   urged   on   behalf   of   the<\/p>\n
    Appellant.   The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>
\n               15<\/span><\/p>\n
           ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI,  J.)<\/p>\n
           ( DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)<\/p>\n
                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:39:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 Bench: Ranjana Desai, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.150 OF 2005 Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte, Age 27 years, Occ.Labour, R\/o.Budhwar Peth, Solapur. …Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. …Respondent. […]<\/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-63998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-25T15:25:29+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T15:25:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2581,\"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\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T15:25:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-25T15:25:29+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T15:25:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008"},"wordCount":2581,"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\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008","name":"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T15:25:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lahu-ramchandra-bandpatte-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lahu Ramchandra Bandpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/63998","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=63998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}