{"id":69103,"date":"2001-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001"},"modified":"2018-11-19T13:13:58","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T07:43:58","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1246  of  1997\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHARAT FAKIRA DHIWAR..\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t02\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
S. N. VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Appeal is against a Judgment dated 7th July, 1997 of a Division
\nBench of the Bombay High Court as per which the conviction and sentence
\nawarded to the Respondent by a Sessions Court were set aside, and he was
\nacquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tBriefly stated the facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
On 23rd October, 1995, which was a Diwali day, P.W. 10 one Shantabai and
\nher son Satish had gone to the market for purchasing Puja articles and some
\nfire crackers.\tWhen they returned home they found that Nisha (the daughter
\nof Satish aged 3 years) was not at home.   The efforts of all the members of
\nthe family to find out the young girl bore no fruits.  Therefore, a missing
\nreport was lodged with the police station.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 24th October, 1995 P.W. 6 one Tanhabai Davkar went to the field
\nto cut grass.  There she noticed the dead body of a young girl lying among
\nthe sugarcane crop.  Tanhabai then informed her son P.W. 12 one Sitaram
\nDeokar that she had seen a body lying in the sugarcane field.\tSitaram
\nDeokar informed the police.\tIn the meantime, Shantabai came to the
\npolice station to make enquiries.  She was informed that there was the dead
\nbody of a young girl lying in the field.  Shantabai identified the dead body to
\nbe that of her grand daughter Nisha.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the time when the dead body was found in the sugarcane field one
\nempty jute bag stained with blood was also found at the spot.\tThe dead
\nbody was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by P.W.
\n2 Dr. Anil Shinde who found the following external injuries:
\n“1. Over face C.L.W. on upperlip on both sides.\t 1\/2″ x 1\/2” in
\nsize and redish in colour.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Injuries over head
\nContused abrasion on right side of forehead 1 1\/2″ x 1″.\n<\/p>\n
3. A large haemotoma over right side of frontal region, redish
\nin colour.\n<\/p>\n
4. Fracture of right frontal and right parital bones having redish
\nmargion.\n<\/p>\n
On internal examination he noticed the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1. Both labia majora were oedematous and redish in colour.\n<\/p>\n
2. Clitoria was oedematous, redish in colour and has abrasion
\nover it.   1\/2″ cm. X 1\/2″ cm.\n<\/p>\n
3. Hymen was torn, vagina was also torn on anterior, posterior
\nand lateral surfaces, over posterior.\n<\/p>\n
4. Aspect vagina was found to be torra and the wasll between
\nvagine and rectum was also torn.   This injury was redish in
\ncolour and blood cloths were seen.”\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Shinde opined that the cause of death was due to massive cerebral
\nhemorrhage resulting from the head injury and that the little girl had been
\nraped before being killed.\n<\/p>\n
\tTwo little boys P.Ws. 7 and 8, named Asif Fakir and Ramzan
\nrespectively, went to the house of Shantabai and informed the family that on
\n23rd October, 1995, while they were burning crackers on the road, they had
\nseen the Respondent carrying a bag on his shoulder and they had noticed
\nblood dripping from the bag.  On receipt of this information Shantabai first
\nwent to the house of the Respondent but did not find him there.\t  She,
\ntherefore, went to the police station and lodged a complaint which was
\ntreated as the First Information Report.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to this FIR a case was registered for offences under Sections
\n363, 376, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.   The
\nInvestigating Officer (P.W. 13) went to the house of the Respondent.  He
\nfound that the floor of the house had been freshly covered with cow-dung.
\nHe found some traces of blood on the wall of the house.\t He also found a
\npiece of newspaper and a quilt which were stained with blood.  These items
\nwere seized by the Investigation Officer in the presence of Panchas.  On the
\nsame day the Respondent and his mother were arrested and put up for trial.
\n\tIt is the case of the prosecution that a grinding stone, which had blood
\nstains on it, was recovered at the instance of the Respondent from a field of
\ngrass close to his house.  It is also the case of prosecution that a full pant and
\nan under pant belonging to the Respondent, and an underwear belonging to
\nthe little child were recovered at the instance of the Respondent from the
\nsugarcane field where they had been buried by him.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring the course of investigation the blood samples of the
\nRespondent and the deceased Nisha were taken.  It was ascertained that the
\nblood group of the deceased Nisha was “B”, whereas the blood group of the
\nRespondent was “AB”.  The Chemical examination showed that the blood
\nfound on the gunny bag, the newspaper, the grinding stone and the full pant
\nof the Respondent was of group “B”.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent’s
\nmother, but convicted the Respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
\nhim to death.  The Respondent was also convicted under Section 376 and
\nsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of
\nRs. 1,000\/-.  He was further convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced
\nto 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300\/-.\t All the sentences were directed
\nto run concurrently.   The Respondent filed an Appeal.
\n\tThe High Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the
\nRespondent of all offences.  Hence this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard the parties and have read the evidence.  We have also
\nperused the material on record.\t In this case apart from a number of
\ncircumstances, as enumerated hereafter, there is the evidence of two child
\nwitnesses.   The trial Court put several questions to ascertain whether the
\ntwo child witnesses were aware of the sanctity of oath and whether they
\nwere able to understand the questions put to them.  The trial Court found that
\nthe two child witnesses had answered all the questions properly.  The trial
\nCourt was satisfied that they could understand the questions put to them.
\nAshif Fakir was examined as P.W. 7.  He deposed that on the Diwali
\nday he and the other child witness were lighting crackers in an open place
\nnear the canal.\t He deposed that they saw the Respondent carrying one white
\njute bag from which blood was dripping out.  He deposed that they saw the
\nRespondent going towards the canal.  He deposed that after some time they
\nsaw the Respondent coming back and at that time his shirt was stained with
\nblood.\tHe deposed that on seeing them the Respondent took out his shirt
\nand put it into his pocket.  He deposed that on the next day when he heard
\nthat Nisha was missing, he told the persons from the house of Nisha that
\nthey had seen the Respondent carrying the girl towards the canal.   This child
\nidentified the Respondent in Court as being the person who had carried the
\ngunny bag towards the canal.  This child witness was cross-examined at
\ngreat length.  In spite of searching cross-examination his testimony could not
\nbe shaken.\n<\/p>\n
Ramzan was examined as P.W. 8.\tHe deposed that on Diwali day he
\nand Asif were lighting crackers on the road near the canal.  He deposed that
\nthey saw the Respondent carrying a jute bag of white colour and that the
\nblood was dripping from the said bag.\tHe deposed that the Respondent was
\ngoing towards the canal side.  He deposed that the Respondent came back
\nand on seeing them he removed his short and kept it in his pocket.  He
\ndeposed that there were blood stains on the shirt.  He deposed that on the
\nnext day when they heard, about Nisha being missing, they went to the
\nhouse of Nisha and informed them that they had seen the Respondent
\ncarrying Nisha.\t This child has also been subjected to a searching cross-
\nexamination.  His testimony has also not been shaken in cross-examination.
\nIn the case of Panchhi v. State of U.P. reported in (1998) 7 SCC 177,
\nit has been held that it cannot be said that the evidence of a child witness
\nwould always stand irretrievably stigmatized.\tIt was held that it is not the
\nlaw that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is
\nfound reliable.\t  It was held that evidence of a child witness must be
\nevaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is
\nsusceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is
\nan easy prey to tutoring.  It is held that it is more a rule of practical wisdom
\nthan a law.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka<\/a> reported in 2001
\n(1) SCALE 7, it has been held that the evidence of a child witness cannot be
\ndiscarded only on the ground of her being of teen age.\t It is held that the fact
\nof a child witness would require the Court to scrutinise the evidence with
\ncare and caution.  It is held that if the evidence is shown to have stood the
\ntest of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in the evidence, then a
\nconviction can be based upon such testimony alone.   It is held that
\ncorroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure
\nof caution and prudence.   It is held that some discrepancies in the statement
\nof a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony.   It
\nis held that discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars,
\nwould lend credence to the testimony of a child witness.   It is held that
\nwhile appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required
\nto rule out the possibility of the child being tutored.
\nSimilarly, in the case of Baby Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala<\/a>
\nreported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 667 , this Court has held as follows:
\n“4. The learned trial Judge has put preliminary questions to
\neach of the witnesses and satisfying himself that they were
\nanswering questions intelligently without any fear whatsoever,
\nproceeded to record the evidence.  In the chief examination,
\neach of the witnesses has given all the details of the occurrence.
\nThere has been a searching cross-examination and the witnesses
\nwithstood the same.   We have also gone through the evidence
\nand we do not see any reason to doubt their evidence.\tThey are
\nthe most natural witnesses who had been present in the house at
\nthe night time.\t Both the courts have accepted their evidence
\nand we see no ground to interfere.  There are no merits in this
\nappeal and the same is dismissed.   The appellant who is on bail
\nshall surrender and serve out the sentence and the bail bond
\nstands cancelled.”\n<\/p>\n
The High Court disbelieved the evidence of these two child witnesses
\non the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
a) that the locality was full of houses and that there would have been a
\nlot of people who would also have otherwise seen the Respondent;\n<\/p>\n
b) that it has not been shown that the two children stayed in that locality;\n<\/p>\n
c) that it was highly improbable that there will be no other child lighting
\nfire crackers;\n<\/p>\n
d) that it was impossible to believe that the children did not inform their
\nparents of what they had seen;\n<\/p>\n
e) that there were contradictions between the deposition given by the
\nchildren in Court and the statement given by them to the police;\n<\/p>\n
f) that even if the children had seen the accused carrying a bag they
\ncould not have known that he was carrying the body of dead child.
\nThe High court felt that the Respondent could have been carrying
\nanything else in the bag;\n<\/p>\n
g) that the shirt which the Respondent was supposed to have removed
\nwas not recovered by the police and that this showed that the child
\nwitnesses were not trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, none of the aforesaid reasons, given by the High Court, is
\nsufficient for purposes of discarding the evidence of these two child
\nwitnesses.  To be remembered that the trial Court which had the opportunity
\nof watching the demeanour and conduct of these two child witnesses found
\nthem to be truthful.  In our view it is entirely irrelevant that the locality was
\nfull of houses.\t  The High Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that it
\nwas not shown that the two children stayed in the locality.  During cross-
\nexamination of both these child witnesses, it has been put to them that they
\nwould have been lighting crackers near their house and that they could not
\nhave seen the Respondent from near their house.\t This showed that even the
\ndefence accepted that they stayed in the locality.   It is also in evidence that
\ntheir house was merely 4\/5 houses away from the house of P.W. 10 i.e.
\nShantabai.   There is nothing strange in there being no other children
\nbursting fire crackers at that time.  On the contrary, it is highly unlikely that
\nall the children in the locality would be lighting firecrackers at the same time
\nand place.  The High Court has also disbelieved them on the ground that it is
\nimpossible that they would not have divulged such information to their
\nparents.   But there is nothing on record to show that they did not divulge
\nthis incident to their parents.\t  No questions have been put to them in this
\nregard.\t  Therefore the High Court was wrong in concluding that their
\nconduct in not divulging the incident to their parents was difficult to believe.
\nWe also do not find any material contradictions between the deposition
\ngiven in court and the statement given by them to the police.\tThere may be
\nsome minor contradictions but those are not of a material nature.  The
\nfurther reason given by the High Court that the shirt had not been recovered
\ncould hardly be a reason for disbelieving these two child witnesses.   It is
\nquite possible that the Respondent may have destroyed or hidden the shirt.
\nUndoubtedly on 23rd October, 1995, the children would not know what was
\nbeing carried in the jute bag.\tBut on the next day when they heard about the
\nlittle girl Nisha being missing, they would have put two and two together
\nand known that blood was dripping from the bag because of the girl being
\ncarried in the bag.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated above, the trial Court has found the evidence of the child
\nwitnesses to be reliable and truthful.\tWe also find the evidence to be reliable
\nand truthful.\tThere has been searching cross-examination and both the child
\nwitnesses have stood the test of cross-examination.  The cross-examiner has
\nnot been able to make any dent in the testimony of these two child witnesses.
\nWe, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the child witnesses.
\nEven otherwise their evidence is supported by a number of other
\ncircumstances which have been proved by the prosecution.   These two child
\nwitnesses had seen the Respondent going beyond the canal.  The dead body
\nwas found beyond the canal.   They had seen the Respondent carrying a jute
\nbag.  Next to the dead body a jute bag had been found.\tIt was stained with
\nhuman blood of group “B”.    In the house of Respondent the ground had
\nbeen found to be freshly covered with cow-dung.\t On the wall of the house,
\non a newspaper and a quilt found in the house, there were blood stains.\t The
\nblood stains on the newspaper were of group “B”.   At the instance of the
\nRespondent the grinding stone was recovered from tall grass.  That grinding
\nstone also contained blood of group “B”.   At the instance of the Respondent
\nhis full pant and underwear were recovered from the sugarcane field where
\nhe had buried them.   They also contained the blood of group “B”.   All these
\ncircumstances clearly and unerringly pointed to the guilt of the Respondent.
\nThese circumstances strongly lend support to the evidence of the two child
\nwitnesses.  The High Court has wrongly ignored and\/or brushed aside these
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Muralidhar submitted that, for the reasons given by the High
\nCourt, the evidence of the child witnesses should not be believed.  This
\nsubmission is not acceptable.  Mr. Muralidhar further submitted that the
\ngrinding stone was found from an open place, i.e. from a place very close to
\nthe house of the Respondent.  He submitted that the full pant was found from
\nthe same field where the body had been found.  He submitted that since they
\nwere found from an open place no reliance can be placed on such recoveries.
\nThis Court has observed, in the case of State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh<\/a> reported
\nin (1999) 4 SCC 370, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“26. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which
\nrenders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of
\nthe articles was made from any place which is “open or
\naccessible to others”.\t It is a fallacious notion that when
\nrecovery of any incriminating article was made from a place
\nwhich is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the
\nevidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.\t Any object
\ncan be concealed in places which are open or accessible to
\nothers.\t  For example, if the article is buried in the main
\nroadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public
\nplaces or kept hidden in a public office, the article would
\nremain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances.
\nUntil such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain
\nunhampered.   The person who hid it alone knows where it is
\nuntil he discloses that fact to any other person.  Hence, the
\ncrucial question is not whether the place was accessible to
\nothers or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others.\t If
\nit is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is
\naccessible to others.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tIt is now well settled that the discovery of fact referred to
\nin Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the object recovered
\nbut the fact embraces the place from which the object is
\nrecovered and the knowledge of the accused as to it.   The said
\nratio has received unreserved approval of this Court in
\nsuccessive decisions.\t(Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of
\nMaharashtra<\/a> [(1969) 2 SCC 872], K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v.
\nState of A.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1788], Earabhadrappa v. State of
\nKarnataka [(1983) 2 SCC 330], Shamshul Kanwar v. State of
\nU.P.<\/a> [(1995) 4 SCC 430], State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh<\/a>
\n[(1997) 10 SCC 675]).”\n<\/p>\n
In the present case the grinding stone was found in tall grass.\t The
\npant and underwear were buried.\t They were out of visibility of others in
\nnormal circumstances.  Until they were disinterred, at instance of
\nRespondent, their hidden state had remained unhampered.\t The Respondent
\nalone knew where they were until he disclosed it.  Thus we see no substance
\nin this submission also.\n<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, in our view, the impugned Judgment
\ncannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.   The Judgment of the trial Court
\nconvicting the accused is restored.   Regarding sentence we would have
\nconcurred with the Sessions Court’s view that the extreme penalty of death
\ncan be chosen for such a crime.\t However, as the accused was once acquitted
\nby the High Court we refrain from imposing that extreme penalty in spite of
\nthe fact that this case is perilously near the region of “rarest of the rare
\ncases”, as envisaged by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of
\nPunjab [reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684].\tHowever, the lesser option is not
\nunquestionably foreclosed and so we alter the sentence, in regard to the
\noffence under Section 302 IPC, to imprisonment for life.  The sentences
\nimposed by the trial Court on all other counts would remain unaltered. We
\ndirect the Sessions Court, Ahmadnagar to take immediate and necessary
\nsteps to put the accused in jail if he is not already in jail, for undergoing the
\nsentence imposed on him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 Author: S N Variava Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1246 of 1997 PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: BHARAT FAKIRA DHIWAR.. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/11\/2001 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava JUDGMENT: S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against a […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-19T07:43:58+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-19T07:43:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3301,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-19T07:43:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-19T07:43:58+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-19T07:43:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001"},"wordCount":3301,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-19T07:43:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bharat-fakira-dhiwar-on-2-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bharat Fakira Dhiwar on 2 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/69103","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=69103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}