{"id":72906,"date":"2007-06-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-25T02:11:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-24T20:41:43","slug":"ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasasyat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  829 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nAjay Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of  Maharashtra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/06\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASASYAT & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2954 of 2006)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. \tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
\nDivision Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench,
\ndismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Appellant faced
\ntrial for alleged commission of offence punishable under
\nSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).
\nHe was convicted by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge,
\nNagpur and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200\/-
\nwith default stipulation was imposed. Appeal filed against the
\njudgment, as noted above, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tProsecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The appellant-accused was tried on a charge of having
\ncommitted murder of his wife Smt. Latabai (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘deceased’) by pouring kerosene on her person
\nand setting her ablaze in the night of 29.4.2003 i.e. at about
\n1.30 a.m. in the police quarters No. 203\/3 at Raghuji Nagar,
\nSakkardara at Nagpur. Appellant-accused was residing in the
\nsaid quarters along with his wife-the deceased and children.
\nOn the fateful night when the neighbouring residents, mostly
\npolice personnel were in their respective quarters and sleeping
\nin the courtyards, they heard sound of the tape-recorder,
\nwhich was being played by the appellant-accused, at about
\n1.30 a.m. in the night which awakened them. They heard the
\nappellant-accused and his wife quarrelling and saw the
\nappellant-accused dragging the deceased inside the house by
\nholding her hands and after a short while they noticed the
\nappellant-accused coming out of his quarters and shouting
\n“Kaka Lata Mere Hatho se Mar Gai” and fled away. Thereafter,
\nthe neighbours entered the quarters of the appellant-accused
\nand saw that Lata had caught fire. They tried to extinguish the
\nfire, but, as she had sustained excessive burns before she
\ncould be removed to hospital, she died on the spot. Due to this
\nincident, all the people in the neighbourhood had gathered at
\nthe place of’ the incident and report (Exh. 80) in the matter
\ncame to be lodged by Police constable Krishna Sadashiv Lute
\n(P.W. 1) at Police Station Sakkardara. The said report was
\ntaken down in the proforma prescribed under Section 154 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’)
\nwhich is Exb. 19, by P.S.I. Kale (P.W. 11). P.S.I. Kale registered
\noffence under Section 302 of IPC vide Crime No. 192\/93 of
\nSakkardara Police Station. Thereafter, he visited the place of
\nthe incident and prepared the spot panchnama (Exb. 40) in
\nthe presence of the panchas. He noticed that deceased Lata
\nwas fully burnt and her neck was stretched towards her
\nstomach and her hands were crouching, both her legs were
\ndrawn towards abdomen side. He also noticed partly burnt
\nmatters on her person which was little bit wet. In the kitchen,
\nhe noticed that there was a tin, which was containing some
\nkerosene,  match sticks and other material which he recorded
\nin the spot panchanama and seized the Articles 1 to 7. P.S.I.
\nLaxman Tighara (P.W. 9) took over the investigation of the case
\non 29.4.1993. He arrested the appellant-accused at about
\n7.00 p.m, who was found near statute of Tukdoji Maharaj,
\nprepared the arrest panchanama and seized his clothes. The
\nappellant-accused was referred to medical officer for his
\nmedical examination. In the course of investigation, the
\ninquest  Panchanama (Exb. 22) of the dead body of’ Latabai
\nwas prepared and dead body was sent to Department of
\nForensic Medicines, Medical College, Nagpur for conducting
\npost mortem. The Medical Officer conducted the post mortem
\nand gave the report (Exb. 31), which was admitted by the
\nappel1ant-accused and, therefore, the prosecution did not
\nexamine any Medical Officer. The police recorded statement of’
\nwitnesses in addition to completing the formalities of
\nforwarding the articles, seized during the investigation, to the
\nChemical Analyser. After investigation was completed, charge-
\nsheet came to be filed against the appellant-accused. His case
\nwas committed to the court of Sessions for trial. As accused
\npleaded innocence, he was put to trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe trial Court found the accused guilty primarily on two
\ngrounds; (a) there was extra judicial confession made before
\nPWs 1, 3 and 4; (b) kerosene was found on the dress which the
\naccused was wearing at the time of occurrence.  Placing
\nreliance on these two aspects, the trial Court found the
\naccused guilty.  High Court concurred with the conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
\nappellant submitted that there was no extra judicial
\nconfession as claimed. Admittedly, PW-1 had animosity with
\nthe accused because the said witness used to peep in the
\nbathroom of the accused when his wife-deceased was taking
\nbath. This aspect has been admitted by not only PW-1 but also
\nPW-3. The latter being the wife of PW-1 was bound to support
\nthe statement of PW-1. There is great difference in the
\nlanguage the accused is supposed to have stated. It was
\nadmitted by PWs 1 and 3 that accused is supposed to have
\naddressed the utterances towards “Kakaji” and this reference
\ncould be not only to PW-1 but also another neighbour of the
\naccused. The officer who had given the FSL report was not
\nexamined as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
\nTrial Court and the High Court have examined in detail the
\nevidence and come to the conclusion about guilt of the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWe shall first deal with the question regarding claim of
\nextra judicial confession. Though it is not necessary that the
\nwitness should speak the exact words but there cannot be
\nvital and material difference. While dealing with a stand of
\nextra judicial confession, Court has to satisfy that the same
\nwas voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence.
\nExtra judicial confession can form the basis of conviction if
\npersons before whom it is stated to be made appear to be
\nunbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused.
\nWhere there is material to show animosity, Court has to
\nproceed cautiously and find out whether confession just like
\nany other evidence depends on veracity of witness to whom it
\nis made. It is not invariable that the Court should not accept
\nsuch evidence if actual words as claimed to have been spoken
\nare not reproduced and the substance is given. It will depend
\non circumstance of the case. If substance itself is sufficient to
\nprove culpability and there is no ambiguity about import of the
\nstatement made by accused, evidence can be acted upon even
\nthough substance and not actual words have been stated.
\nHuman mind is not a tape recorder which records what has
\nbeen spoken word by word. The witness should be able to say
\nas nearly as possible actual words spoken by the accused.
\nThat would rule out possibility of erroneous interpretation of
\nany ambiguous statement. If word by word repetition of
\nstatement of the case is insisted upon, more often than not
\nevidentiary value of extra judicial confession has to be thrown
\nout as unreliable and not useful. That cannot be a
\nrequirement in law. There can be some persons who have a
\ngood memory and may be able to repost exact words and there
\nmay he many who are possessed of normal memory and do so.
\nIt is for the Court to judge credibility of the witness’s capacity
\nand thereafter to decide whether his or her evidence has to be
\naccepted or not. If Court believes witnesses before whom
\nconfession is made and is satisfied confession was voluntary
\nbasing on such evidence, conviction can be founded. Such
\nconfession should be clear, specific and unambiguous.  The
\nevidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 is not consistent as to where the
\naccused is supposed to have made the statement. While PW-1
\nsaid that he was inside the house, interestingly PW-3 stated
\nthat accused did not come out of the house and thereafter he
\ndid not utter a statement which is taken to be the extra
\njudicial confession. So far as PW-4 is concerned the trial Court
\nhad disbelieved his evidence, the High Court found the same
\nto be credible. Significantly, he stated that the accused came
\nnear his courtyard and shouted “Kakaji Daudo Lata Jal
\nGayee”. In contrast, PW-1 stated that “Kakaji Lata Mar Gaye
\nmere hathse”. PW-3 in contrast said “Kakaji Mere hathse Lata
\nJal Gayee”. It would, therefore, be not safe to place any
\nreliance on the so called extra judicial confession.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe expression ‘confession’ is not defined in the Evidence
\nAct, ‘Confession’ is a statement made by an accused which
\nmust either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate
\nsubstantially all the facts which constitute the offence. The
\ndictionary meaning of the word ‘statement’ is “act of stating;
\nthat which is stated; a formal account, declaration of facts
\netc.” The word ‘statement’ includes both oral and written
\nstatement. Communication to another is not however an
\nessential component to constitute a ‘statement’. An accused
\nmight have been over-heard uttering to himself or saying to his
\nwife or any other person in confidence. He might have also
\nuttered something in soliloquy. He might also keep a note in
\nwriting. All the aforesaid nevertheless constitute a statement.
\nIt such statement is an admission of guilt, it would amount to
\na confession whether it is communicated to another or not.
\nThis very question came up for consideration before this Court
\nin Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 40: (1966 Cr1
\nU 68). After referring to some passages written by well known
\nauthors on the “Law of Evidence” Subba Rao, J. (as he then
\nwas) held that “communication is not a necessary ingredient
\nto constitute confession”. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, this
\nCourt held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
…Admissions and confessions are exceptions
\nto the hearsay rule. The Evidence Act places
\nthem in the category of relevant evidence
\npresumably on the ground that as they are
\ndeclarations against the interest of the person
\nmaking them, they are probably true. The
\nprobative value of an admission or a
\nconfession goes not to depend upon its
\ncommunication to another, though, just like
\nany other piece of evidence, it can be admitted
\nin evidence only on proof. This proof in the
\ncase of oral admission or confession can be
\noffered only by witnesses who heard the
\nadmission pr confession. as the case may be….
\nIf, as we have said, statement is the genus and
\nconfession is only a sub-species of that genus,
\nwe do not see any reason why the statement
\nimplied in the confession should be given a
\ndifferent meaning. We, therefore, hold that a
\nstatement, whether communicated or not,
\nadmitting guilt is a confession of guilt<\/p>\n
                                                        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
9.\tSo far as the prosecution case that kerosene was found
\non accused’s dress is concerned, it is to be noted that no
\nquestion in this regard was put to the accused while he was
\nexamined under Section 313 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in its
\nopening words- ‘for the purpose of enabling the accused to
\nexplain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against
\nhim.’ In Hate Singh, Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
\n(AIR<\/a> 1953 SC 468) it has been laid down by Bose, J that the
\nstatements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of
\nthe Code ‘are among the most important matters to be
\nconsidered at the trial’. It was pointed out that the statements
\nof the accused recorded by the committing magistrate and the
\nSessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what
\nin England and in America he would be free to state in his own
\nway in the witness box and that they have to be received in
\nevidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at
\nthe trial. This position remains unaltered even after the
\ninsertion of Section 315 in the Code and any statement under
\nSection 313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section
\n315 is not there.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe object of examination under this Section is to give
\nthe accused an opportunity to explain the case made against
\nhim. This statement can be taken into consideration in
\njudging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the
\naccused to discharge, it depends on the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case if such statement discharges the
\nonus.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe word ‘generally’ in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit
\nthe nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a
\ngeneral nature relating to the case, but it means that the
\nquestion should relate to the whole case generally and should
\nalso be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The
\nquestion must be framed in such a way as to enable the
\naccused to know what he is to explain, what are the
\ncircumstances which are against him and for which an
\nexplanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to
\nafford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining
\ncircumstances which appear against him and that the
\nquestions must be fair and must be couched in a form which
\nan ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and
\nunderstand. A conviction based on the accused’s failure to
\nexplain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The
\nwhole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the
\nattention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points
\nin the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution
\nclaims that the case is made out against the accused so that
\nhe may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe importance of observing faithfully and fairly the
\nprovisions of Section 313 of the Code cannot be too strongly
\nstressed. It is not sufficient compliance to string together a
\nlong series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say
\nabout them. He must be questioned separately about each
\nmaterial substance which is intended to be used against him.
\nThe questionings must be fair and couched in a form which an
\nignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and
\nunderstand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind
\nis apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder.
\nFairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance
\nshould be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate
\nmind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily
\nappreciate and understand.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tAbove being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that
\nthe prosecution has failed to establish the accusations. The
\nconviction is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant be
\nset at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasasyat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 829 of 2007 PETITIONER: Ajay Singh RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/06\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASASYAT & D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-72906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 - 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\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-24T20:41:43+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T20:41:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2466,\"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\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T20:41:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 - 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\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-24T20:41:43+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T20:41:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007"},"wordCount":2466,"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\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007","name":"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T20:41:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/72906","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=72906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}