{"id":73953,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-08T05:06:11","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T23:36:11","slug":"mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H S Bedi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad<\/div>\n<pre>                                                              REPORTABLE\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2006\n\nMOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH\n&amp; ORS.                                            .....Appellants\n                     Versus\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA                              .....Respondent\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    The facts leading to this appeal are as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>      Deceased Noorjahan was married to appellant No.1-<br \/>\nMohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh but no children had been<br \/>\nborn to the couple. All the accused that is Mohd. Usman, his<br \/>\nmother and sisters were accordingly misbehaving with the<br \/>\nintention of forcing her to leave the house so that appellant<br \/>\nNo.1 could re-marry. The relations between the accused and<br \/>\nthe deceased had become strained on this account and there<br \/>\nwere frequent quarrels between them.\n<\/p>\n<p>      On 28th April, 1997, a quarrel took place in the family on<br \/>\nthis issue during which the deceased allegedly consented to<br \/>\nher   husband&#8217;s   second    marriage   provided    she   too   was<br \/>\npermitted to stay on with him.         This arrangement was,<br \/>\nhowever, not acceptable to the accused with the result that the<br \/>\n                                 Crl. Appeal<br \/>\n                               No.1028\/2006<\/p>\n<p>quarrel continued late into the evening during which the<br \/>\ndeceased was beaten which resulted in severe injuries to her<br \/>\nhead. It is the prosecution case that thereafter the deceased<br \/>\nwas murdered by first inserting a handkerchief into her mouth<br \/>\nto stifle her cries and suffocate her and she was then<br \/>\nstrangulated and set on fire.     The Fire Brigade received a<br \/>\nmessage about a fire on which it rushed to the house of the<br \/>\naccused and extinguished the flames.           Information was also<br \/>\nconveyed to Kurla police station by one Suleman Patel about<br \/>\nthe incident on which a police party immediately rushed to the<br \/>\nsite. A complaint was, accordingly, lodged against all the four<br \/>\naccused and they were arrested and on the completion of the<br \/>\ninvestigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code. The accused claimed innocence and were brought<br \/>\nto trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The prosecution in support of its case relied on the<br \/>\nevidence    of   PW-5-Dr.   Manohar     Shivsharan,      who   had<br \/>\nperformed the post-mortem, and had certified the cause of<br \/>\ndeath as &#8220;Asphyxial death due to throttling and gagging<br \/>\nassociated with head injury and burns&#8221;.            The doctor also<br \/>\nnoticed contusions on the face, bleeding on the lips and<br \/>\ncongestion of the throat and also recovered a handkerchief<br \/>\nthat was deeply embedded in the mouth of the deceased<br \/>\nblocking the mouth opening. The doctor further opined that<br \/>\nthe contusions could have been caused by blows given by a<br \/>\n                                 Crl. Appeal<br \/>\n                               No.1028\/2006<\/p>\n<p>hard and blunt object and the injuries to the lips had been<br \/>\ncaused while gagging the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Trial Court noted that there were no eye-witnesses to<br \/>\nthe defence but from the evidence of PWs.4, 6 and 8, it was<br \/>\napparent that the relations between the accused and the<br \/>\ndeceased had become strained because the deceased was<br \/>\nunable to give birth to a child and there were frequent quarrels<br \/>\nbetween them on that account. PW-6-Naseem Virani further<br \/>\nstated that on the date of the incident at about 1:30 p.m. or<br \/>\n2:00 p.m she had heard Hashmi Begum, the mother of the<br \/>\naccused, quarreling with the deceased in the presence of<br \/>\naccused Nos.3 and 4. PW-6 further stated that accused No.1<br \/>\nhad also come to the house after a short while and the quarrel<br \/>\nhad again erupted which continued till about 4:30 p.m. and<br \/>\nthat she (PW-6) had thereafter left her house and when she<br \/>\nhad returned at about 8:30 p.m., Noorjahan was dead.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The fact of the family quarrel was also confirmed by PW-<br \/>\n8-Sayyed Ali who further deposed that the accused were<br \/>\nbeating the deceased and, thereafter Mohd. Usman had dealt<br \/>\nblows on her chest and stomach while his sisters had caught<br \/>\nhold of her by her hands. The trial Court also relied on the<br \/>\nstatement of PSI-Avinash Bhamre (PW-9) who had recovered<br \/>\ncertain items from the spot including a stove, a half burnt<br \/>\nkerosene plastic cannister containing two litres of kerosene oil,<br \/>\nand PW-10-PI Rajan Shrikant Gaikwad, the Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer who had taken into possession the blood stained<br \/>\n                                 Crl. Appeal<br \/>\n                               No.1028\/2006<\/p>\n<p>clothes of the accused when he had arrested them on the 30th<br \/>\nApril, 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, concluded<br \/>\nthat in the light of the fact that as there were no kerosene oil<br \/>\nor blood stains on the accused-Hashmi Begum, the mother of<br \/>\naccused Nos.1, 3 and 4, there was some doubt as to her<br \/>\npresence. The court also found that no case under Section 201<br \/>\nof the Indian Penal Code was made out.         The Trial Court,<br \/>\nhowever, convicted the other three accused of the offence<br \/>\nunder Section 302\/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced<br \/>\nthem to imprisonment for life.    This judgment has also been<br \/>\nconfirmed by the High Court in an appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The present matter arises as a result of the grant of<br \/>\nspecial leave by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Mr. Chetan Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants, has raised several arguments before us.      It has<br \/>\nbeen submitted that in a case of a prosecution relying solely<br \/>\non circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the chain of<br \/>\ncircumstances against the accused be complete leading to the<br \/>\nonly hypothesis that the accused alone were guilty of the<br \/>\noffence alleged and no other conclusion could be drawn. He<br \/>\nhas also pointed out that the evidence of the three witnesses<br \/>\nPWs-4, 6 and 8 who had come forward to support the<br \/>\nprosecution story, could not be believed as they being<br \/>\n                                 Crl. Appeal<br \/>\n                               No.1028\/2006<\/p>\n<p>employed elsewhere had no cause to be present when the<br \/>\nquarrel had ensued on the fatal day and that in any case it<br \/>\nwould have been difficult for them to have noticed as to what<br \/>\nwas going on in the house of the accused on account of the<br \/>\nlocation of their houses vis-`-vis the house of the accused.   It<br \/>\nhas further been submitted that there was no evidence to<br \/>\nsuggest that the relations between the parties were strained or<br \/>\nthat Mohd. Usman, accused no.1, was keen to get married a<br \/>\nsecond time as the deceased was unable to bear him a child.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, the learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\nState of Maharashtra has, however, supported the judgment of<br \/>\nthe courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and<br \/>\nvery carefully gone through the record.        We see from the<br \/>\nevidence that the deceased had met a homicidal death. This is<br \/>\nclear from the evidence of PW-5, the doctor who observed that<br \/>\nthe death was due to Asphyxial throttling, head injuries and<br \/>\nburns.   The doctor also observed that a ladies handkerchief<br \/>\nhad been stuffed deep into the mouth of the deceased with the<br \/>\nresult that the protrusion of the tongue which was a symptom<br \/>\nof throttling, was absent.   The Doctor also opined that the<br \/>\ninjuries on the head were sufficient to cause death and that all<br \/>\nthe injuries when seen together clearly proved the case of<br \/>\n                                  Crl. Appeal<br \/>\n                                No.1028\/2006<\/p>\n<p>prosecution that the deceased had been severely beaten before<br \/>\nbeing burnt and killed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   We must first notice that the incident happened in the<br \/>\nmatrimonial home of accused no.1 and the deceased. We have<br \/>\nalso carefully examined the evidence of PWs-4, 6 and 8 who<br \/>\nare absolutely independent witnesses.            They categorically<br \/>\nstated that the relations between the accused and the<br \/>\ndeceased were strained on account of the inability of the<br \/>\ndeceased to bear a child and that the accused were anxious<br \/>\nthat she should leave so that accused No.1 could re-marry.<br \/>\nThe offer given by the deceased to the effect that she had no<br \/>\nobjection to the remarriage provided she too was permitted to<br \/>\nstay in the same house was not accepted by the accused and<br \/>\nthey thought it fit to get rid of her. A perusal of the evidence of<br \/>\nthese witnesses reveals that they had been witnesses not only<br \/>\nto the frequent quarrels within the family but even to the very<br \/>\nbitter fight on the day in question which continued for almost<br \/>\nthe whole afternoon and ultimately led to the murder. It has<br \/>\ncome in the evidence that the deceased was a stout and<br \/>\nhealthy   woman,     perhaps    physically      stronger   than   her<br \/>\nhusband, and it is, therefore, obvious that accused nos. 3 and<br \/>\n4 were also required to lend a helping hand. We also see from<br \/>\nthe Report of the Chemical Analyst that there were kerosene<br \/>\nresidues and blood stains on the shirts of accused nos. 3 and<br \/>\n4, the sisters of the accused no.1. We are, therefore, of the<br \/>\n                                 Crl. Appeal<br \/>\n                               No.1028\/2006<\/p>\n<p>opinion that the chain of circumstances envisaged for a<br \/>\nsuccessful prosecution, are present in the case before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   We, thus, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J.<br \/>\n                                          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)<\/p>\n<p>                                   &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J.<br \/>\n                              (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>OCTOBER 26, 2010<br \/>\nNEW DELHI.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 Author: H S Bedi Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2006 MOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH &amp; ORS. &#8230;..Appellants Versus STATE [&hellip;]<\/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-73953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-07T23:36:11+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T23:36:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1457,\"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\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T23:36:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-07T23:36:11+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T23:36:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":1457,"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\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010","name":"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T23:36:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-usman-mohd-islam-shaikh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh &amp; &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/73953","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=73953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}