{"id":80466,"date":"1998-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998"},"modified":"2015-07-10T21:21:40","modified_gmt":"2015-07-10T15:51:40","slug":"vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998","title":{"rendered":"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n
Bench: Chief Justice India, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVINAYAK SHIVAJIRAO POL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t22\/01\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nCHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, M. SRINIVASAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1998
\nPresent :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Hon’ble the Chief Justice
\n\t\t Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan
\nMr. Vijay  Kotwal and  Mr. S.R.\t Chitale, Sr. Advocates, Mr.
\nA.M. Khanwilkar,   Mr.\tS.M. Jadhav  and Ms.  Abha R.Sharma,
\nAdvocates with them for the appellant.
\nMr. I.G.  Shah, Sr.  Advocate, Mr.S.S.\tShinde\tand  Mr.  OM
\nNargolkar, Advocates for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nSRINIVASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The pivotal  question in  this appeal  is\twhether\t the
\nextra judicial\tconfession made\t by the appellant could form
\nthe  basis  of\tconviction  under  Section  302\t I.P.C.\t The
\nquestion was  answered in  the negative\t by  the  Additional
\nSessions Judge,\t Sangli but  the High  Court gave a contrary
\nanswer and  reversed the  judgment of the Court of Sessions.
\nThus the appellant stood convicted and sentenced to death as
\nthe High  Court opined that `this case fails in the category
\nof the\tgravest\t  of grave  and rarest in rare cases’. After
\nhearing the  appeal for some time, we decided that the death
\nsentence awarded  to the  appellant may\t not be\t sustainable
\nwhether we accept or reject the appeal ultimately and passed
\non order  on 6.1.98 that the appellant be taken out from the
\nDeath Cell  and be  put in  the cell meant for life convicts
\ntill further  orders. Thereafter we completed the hearing of
\nthe appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The appellant  was a  in the Army at 14th Maratha Light
\nInfantry,  Aundh   Camp,  Pune.\t He  married  one  Vimal  of
\nHingangaon village  in 1980  and had  a female child about a
\nyear latter. Vimal was not keeping good health and was found
\nto be  suffering from tuberculosis. She was advised complete
\nbed rest  for 6\t to 7 months and avoid sexual intercourse at
\nleast for one year. The parents of the appellant were living
\nin the\tvillage Tisangi.  Vimal was sent back to her parents
\nbut some  time later  she was  brought back by the appellant
\nand left with his parents.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The appellant  was allotted  the duty of a guard at the
\nresidence of  Commanding Officer  at Ghorpadi,\tPune for  24
\nhours in  rotation in February, 1983. He was absent from his
\nduty on\t 9th and  10th February and reported for duty on the
\n11th at\t 1.00 P.M. He gave an explanation for his absence to
\nthe authorities\t concerned that\t he had gone to his sister’s
\nhouse at Akurdi, Pune. As it was found to be unsatisfactory,
\nhe was punished under the Army Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.   In the  meanwhile on  10.2.83, Vimal’s  father went  to
\nTisangi in  response to\t her letter  requesting him  to come
\nimmediately. She  was not  available and  the parents of the
\nappellant could\t not give  an explanation for her absence to
\nhis satisfaction. He went back to his village in a disgusted
\nmood.\n<\/p>\n
5.   On 13.2.83\t a headless dead body was found in a well in
\nPusegaon Village. The body was in a highly decomposed state.
\nIt was\tfound that  there was only a blouse on the trunk and
\nboth the  legs were  tied with\ta   green cloth\t piece. Some
\ninjuries were  found in the neck and the thumbs of the hands
\nwere found  cut. Certain  other fingers were also found half
\ncut. After  autopsy, search  was made  for the\thead but  it
\ncould not be found. The fact was proclaimed by beat of drums
\nin the nearby village so that the trunk of the body could be
\nidentified. But\t nobody could identify the same and the same
\nwas cremated.\n<\/p>\n
6.   On\t 17.2.83   the\tappellant  approached  some  of\t the
\nsuperior officers  and confessed  before them  that  he\t had
\nkilled his wife Vimal. He was told by them to put in writing
\nwhatever he  wanted to\tsay. He\t wrote\tout  a\tconfessional
\nstatement in  Marathi language\tand  signed  below  it.\t The
\nwriting was  attested by four military officers. He was kept
\nunder watch  by the  higher authorities in the guarded room.
\nThe military  authorities  informed  the  Superintendent  of
\nPolice at Sangli about the confessional statement and sent a
\ncopy of the same to him. They were requested to\t contact the
\nSuperintended of  Police, Satara  as the offence was alleged
\nto have\t been committed\t at Pusegaon in District Satara. The
\nmilitary authorities  communicated to  the Superintendent of
\nPolice the  information on 22.2.83. The police commenced the
\ninvestigation and  obtained on\t2.3.83 a  warrant  from\t the
\nJudicial Magistrate,  Kavathe-Mahankal for  the\t arrest\t and
\nproduced  before   the\tMagistrate  on\t5.3.83.\t During\t the
\ninterrogation the appellant mentioned the name of his friend
\nBaban Shankar  Suryavanshi as his accomplice. The letter was
\nalso questioned\t and he offered to make discovery of certain
\narticles namely\t a Kukhari  and a  steel box like a military
\nbox. The  appellant himself offered to make discovery of the
\nhead of his wife Vimal and as per his statement the head was
\nrecovered from\tanother well  in the  same village Pusegaon.
\nThereafter the\tinvestigation was completed and charges were
\nframed against the appellant and his friend.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The Court of Sessions recorded the following findings:\n<\/p>\n
     I.\t  The dead  body was  that of Vimal, the wife of the
\nappellant whose death was homicidal.\n<\/p>\n
     II. The appellant had sufficient motive for killing his
\nwife.\n<\/p>\n
     III.  The\t extra\tjudicial   confession  made  by\t the
\nappellant to the military authorities was voluntary.\n<\/p>\n
     IV. The  head of  the deceased  was discovered  at\t the
\ninstance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     V.\t  The letter  muddamal article 20 was written by the
\nappellant to his friend.\n<\/p>\n
However, the  Court of\tSessions  took\tthe  view  that\t the
\nevidence led  by the prosecution ran counter to the contents
\nof the\textra judicial\tconfession and\tthe same  could\t not
\ntherefore be  relied upon  to convict the appellant. In that
\nview, the Court of Sessions acquitted the accused.\n<\/p>\n
8.   On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of the
\ntrial court  and convicted  the appellant  for\tthe  offence
\nunder Section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to death. The High
\nCourt however confirmed the acquittal of the other accused.\n<\/p>\n
9.  Before proceeding further it is necessary to set out the
\nstatement of extra judicial confession made by the appellant
\nto the\tmilitary authorities.  It has been extracted in full
\nin the\tjudgment of  the High Court as translated and placed
\nbefore it. It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “1. Shipai No. 277\/892, am giving
\n\tin writing as to how I killed my
\n       wife as her behavior was not good
\n\tand I myself had caught her with
\n\t\t\t    another man.\n<\/p>\n
     On 9th February in the afternoon at
\n     4.00  p.m.\t  I  was   on  duty   at
\n     Brigadier\t Saheb’s   Bungalow   at
\n     Ghorpadi,\tPune.\tFrom   there   I
\n     straightway came  to bus  stand and
\n     went to  Satara by bus. While going
\n     I was  carrying one  steel box, one
\n     Kukari  and  one  rug.  High  these
\n     luggage I\treached home  at a  2.00
\n     a.m. on  10th. After reaching home,
\n     I went to the place where my mother
\n     , father  and wife were sleeping. I
\n     woke up my wife. After that time my
\n     mother also  woke up. My wife said,
\n     “come, I  will prepare tea for you.\n<\/p>\n
     I told  my mother\tthat I am taking
\n     my wife  and she  should stay there
\n     only. Then,  I came with my wife to
\n     the other home. After coming to the
\n     other home, I closed the outer door
\n     and also  closed the  inner door of
\n     the room. Then I pretended to sleep
\n     with my  wife and pressed her neck.\n<\/p>\n
     I pressed\tthe neck  till she died.\n<\/p>\n
     After she\twas dead.  I put  her in
\n     the time box which I had taken with
\n     me and  covered with  rug. Then  at
\n     2.30 a.m.\tI can’t\t to bus\t stop at
\n     the platu of Ghat Nagre which is 2-\n<\/p>\n
     1\/2 miles\taway from  our\tvillage.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, in the morning at 5.30 a.m. I
\n     came to  Nagare Fata  by Bombay  to
\n     Jat bus.  At that\tspot within  two
\n     minutes one  truck came. I got into
\n     the Miraj\tRailway Station at 10.00
\n     a.m. I boarded a train and got down
\n     at Koregaon. I went to Koregaon bus
\n     station in\t Bullock Cart.\tThen  in
\n     the afternoon  at 1.00  p.m. I went
\n     to Aundh  Fata bus stop, which is 2
\n     miles west\t of village  Puregaon by
\n     bus. It  was 3.30 in the afternoon.\n<\/p>\n
     At that  time I  waited there  till
\n     night  9\tp.m.   and   after   the
\n     vehicular\tand  human  traffic  was
\n     stopped, I started my work. Earlier
\n     I had  inspected the  wells in  the
\n     area, Then\t I carried  the box to a
\n     gulch (Nala).  After  reaching  the
\n     nala, I took out the dead body from
\n     the box  and severed  the head  and
\n     both the  thumbs. Then  I\tput  the
\n     body only\tin a  gunny bag and went
\n     to a  well. At  the well  i put two
\n     big stones\t in the\t gunny\tbag  and
\n     tied the  mouth closed of the gunny
\n     bag and throw it in the well.\n<\/p>\n
     Then again\t I came\t back  near  the
\n     bed. I  wrapped the head in a cloth
\n     and with  that head went near other
\n     well. Then\t I tied\t two stones with
\n     that head and throw it in the well.\n<\/p>\n
     The *  I tied the thumbs in a cloth
\n     and put  them in  pocket. I  washed
\n     the box  and   in the well. At that
\n     time some truck came from Puregaon.\n<\/p>\n
     I came  to Satara\tS.T. station  at
\n     10.30 p.m.\t at night in that truck.\n<\/p>\n
     Then I  removed the  kukri from the
\n     box and  kept it  in the  cloth bag
\n     which was\twith me.  I left the box
\n     there only\t and came to W.C. at the
\n     Station. In  the W.C.  I throw  the
\n     thumbs and\t kukari and  flushed it.\n<\/p>\n
     At Aundh  Phata I burnt her clothes
\n     and mixed\tit in  soil. And then at
\n     11.00   p.m. I  sat in  the bus and
\n     got down  at Pune\ton 11th\t at 1.00
\n     a.m. Then\tI went\tfor Guard.  Then
\n     there was\treport. I told the Guard
\n     Commander that  I had  gone  to  my
\n     sister at\tAkurdi. Then  on 14th at
\n     12.00 noon I came to the Main Line.\n<\/p>\n
     I had  given the  same statement to
\n     Company Commander on 16th.\n<\/p>\n
     This entire statement is absolutely
\n     true.\n<\/p>\n
     Shipai  Vinayak   Shivaji\tPal  No.
\n     277\/892<\/span>
\n\t\t  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t       17\/2\/1983″\n<\/p>\n
10.  There is  no ambiguity in the above statement. It shows
\nthat the  appellant killed  his wife.  Both the\t Courts have
\nfound  that  the  statement  was  made\tvoluntarily  by\t the
\nappellant. The\tsequence of  events shows  that at  the time
\nwhen the  appellant made  a confession,\t neither he  nor the
\nmilitary authorities  had any  knowledge of  the recovery of
\nthe headless  trunk of\tthe appellant’s\t wife. The  military
\nauthorities were  in  no  was  biased  or  inimical  to\t the
\nappellant. Nothing is brought out in the evidence in respect
\nof the\tmilitary officers which may indicate that they had a
\nmotive\tfor  attributing  an  untruthful  statement  to\t the
\nappellant. The\tstatement has  been proved  by\tone  of\t the
\nofficers to  whom it  was made.\t The said  officer has\tbeen
\nexamined as  PW 32.  A perusal\tof the\tappellant  that\t the
\nstatement was obtained from him on inducement and promise is
\nnot true.  In such  circumstances it is open to the Court to
\nrest its  conclusion on\t the basis  of such statement and no
\ncorroboration is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In State of U.P. Versus M.K. Anthony. AIR
\n1985 S.C.  48 an  extra judicial  confession was made by the
\naccused to  his friend.\t The Court  found that the statement
\nwas unambiguous\t and unmistakably  conveyed that the accused
\nwas the\t perpetrator of the crime. The Court also found that
\nthe testimony  of the  friend  was  truthful,  reliable\t and
\ntrustworthy. It\t was therefore\theld by\t this Court that the
\nconviction of  the accused on such extra judicial confession
\nwas proper  and no  corroboration was necessary. It was also
\nheld that  much importance  should not\tbe  given  to  minor
\ndiscrepancies and technical errors.\n<\/p>\n
12.  In\t the  present  case  apart  from  the  statement  of
\nrecovery there\tis  a  clinching  circumstance\tagainst\t the
\nappellant. That\t is, the  head\tof  the\t deceased  wife\t was
\nrecovered from\tanother well situated in the land of another
\nperson and  the said  recovery was  made  at the instance of
\nthe appellant.\tThe said  fact of  the head being in another
\nwell was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant and
\nif he  had not\tcommitted the murder he could not have shown
\nthe well  in which  the head  was found.  The High Court was
\ntherefore perfectly  justified in relying upon the statement
\nof confession  and the\trecovery of the head at the instance
\nof the\tappellant for  holding that the appellant was guilty
\nof murder.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The High  Court is\t also right  in placing\t reliance on
\nmuddamal article  20, a\t letter written\t by the appellant to
\nhis friend  who was  the second accused which indicated that
\nthere was some evil plan between the two.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended
\nthat the  High Court is not justified in upsetting the order
\nof acquittal  passed by\t the trial  court when\tthe same was
\nbased on  several reasons set our therein. It is also argued
\nthat none  of the  reasons given by the trial court has been
\nindependently considered  by the  High Court.  According  to
\nlearned counsel\t each and every reason found in the judgment
\nof the\ttrial court  must be  dealt with  by the  High Court
\nbefore it  reverses the conclusion of the trial court. It is
\nalso argued  that the  medical evidence as well as the other
\ncircumstantial evidence\t are contrary to the contents of the
\nstatement of  confession made  by the  appellant and  in the
\nface of\t such contradictions  and Court\t ought not  to\thave
\nrelied on  the extra  judicial\tconfession.  It\t is  further
\ncontended that\tthe High Court ha sin fact accepted one part
\nof the\tstatement of  confession  finding  it  to  be  true.
\nAccording to  the learned  counsel such a course is not open
\nto the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
15.  We have carefully gone through the judgment of both the
\nCourts below  and also\tthe   evidence on  record. The trial
\ncourt has given various reasons for not accepting the extra-
\njudicial confession  but all  are on  the premise  that\t the
\nother evidence on record is contrary thereto. The High Court
\nhas relied  upon the crux of the statement of confession and
\nproceeded on the footing that the other details mentioned in
\nthe statement are not of much relevance and even if there is
\na variation  between such  details and the other evidence on
\nrecord, it  would be  of no consequence. We are in agreement
\nwith the view taken by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The main  contention of  the appellant  is that  in the
\npost mortem examination the opinion  expressed by the doctor
\nis that the death occurred due to haemorrhage by cutting off
\nthe head  and that there is no evidence of the strangling of
\nthe deceased  by the  appellant. There\tis no  merit in this
\ncontention. Even  if there  had been any mark of strangling,
\nthe same  would not be visible as the neck was cut. The body
\nwas found in such highly de-composed condition, it would not
\nhave been  possible at all for the doctor, who conducted the
\npost  mortem,\tto  have  found\t anything  relating  to\t the
\nstrangling of  the deceased  by the  appellant. Further, one
\nimportant factor should be kept in mind when we consider the
\nevidence afforded  by the  post mortem report. When the post
\nmortem was  carried out,  the appellant\t had  not  made\t the
\nconfession. On\tseeing\tthe  headless  trunk,  normally\t and
\nnaturally, the\tdoctor would  have proceeded  to conduct the
\npost mortem  on the  footing  that  the\t death\toccurred  on
\naccount of  the chopping  of the  head. In such a situation,
\nthe doctor  expressed an  opinion  that\t death\twas  due  to
\nhaemorrhage but\t it is\tseen that  in the post mortem report
\nthere is  no reference\tto the symptoms which indicated such
\nhaemorrhage. The  same reasoning  would apply to the opinion
\nof the\tdoctor that the injuries found on the body were ante
\nmortem.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Our attention has been drawn to some of the passages in
\nthe Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology,
\nedited by  C.A.\t Franklin,  Twenty-first  Edition  and\talso
\nParikh’s Text  Book of\tMedical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
\nedited by  Dr. C.K.  Parikh. None  of the passages is of any
\nhelp in\t the present  case in  view of\tthe facts  mentioned
\nabove and  in particular  the circumstance that the body was
\nhighly de-composed  when it  was discovered.  Reference\t has
\nalso been  made to the following passage in the Text Book on
\nMedical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by John Glaister:\n<\/p>\n
     “Ante-mortem    and     post-mortem
\n     bruises.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The signs which are indicative
\n     of\t  ante-mortem\t production   of
\n     bruises   are   swelling\tof   the
\n     tissues, discoloration of the skin,
\n     extravasation  of\tblood  into  the
\n     true skin and subcutaneous tissues,
\n     with infiltrating.\t When bruise  is
\n     well  developed,\tan  examiner  is
\n     justified in assuming the view that
\n     it\t was   produced\t  during   life.\n<\/p>\n
     Nevertheless    for    medico-legal
\n     purposes,\t    a\t   microscopical
\n     examination  should   be  made   to
\n     verify the\t present of  infiltrated
\n     blood.   Since    infiltration   is
\n     possible only  while the  heart  is
\n     beating, this  sign  is  conclusive
\n     that the injury was produced during
\n     life. While  molecular life remains
\n     in\t  the\t tissues,   considerable
\n     violence applied  to  a  dead  body
\n     with  a   blunt   instrument   will
\n     producea\t slight\t    degree    of
\n     extravasation,  but  never\t to  the
\n     same extent  as  during  life,  and
\n     infiltration of the tissues will be
\n     absent.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Suspected  areas  of\tbruising
\n     should   always   be   incised   to
\n     differentiate them from color marks
\n     due  to   hypothesis,  since   both
\n     conditions may  coexist in the same
\n     region of\tthe body.  In  bruising,
\n     extravasated blood\t is present, but
\n     in hypothesis  the present,  but in
\n     hypothesis the served small vessels
\n     are   filled    with   blood    and
\n     extravasation is absent.”\n<\/p>\n
18.  There is nothing on record to show that the post mortem
\nexamination was\t of the type mentioned in the above pessage.
\nIn such Circumstances we are unable to place any reliance on
\nthe opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In Manquli\t Dei Versus State of Orissa AIR 1989 Supreme
\nCourt 483  the wife  killed her\t husband and buried the dead
\nbody in\t the house.  According to her confessional statement
\nshe gave  four axe  blows on  the head\tof the deceased. The
\ndead body  was recovered  according her\t statement  but\t the
\ninjuries on  the dead body were not visible as it was highly
\nde-composed. The Court held that the confession could not be
\nrejected merely\t on the\t ground that  only one simple injury
\nwas stated  in the  post mortem\t report. The  facts  in\t the
\npresent case are similar and the same principle will apply.\n<\/p>\n
20.  There is  no substance in the contention that the steel
\nbox discovered\ton the statement of the second accused could
\nnot be\tsufficient to  place the  dead body inside and carry
\nit. Comments  are also\tmade that the discovery of the steel
\nbox and\t kukhari belies\t the statement of the appellant that
\nhe had\tdiscarded the  same before returning to his place of
\nduty. A\t card-board model  of the  steel trunk\twas produced
\nbefore us.  In our  view that  size of\tthe trunk  is  quite
\nsufficient to  place the  body of  the\tdeceased  inside  by
\nfolding it  which could\t be possible  immediately after\t the
\ndeath. In  any event the variation between the minor details
\ncontained  in\tthe  statement\t of   confession   and\t the
\ncircumstances brought  out in  the evidence  will not in any
\nwas affect  the\t acceptability\tof  the\t confession  of\t the
\nappellant that he killed his wife.\n<\/p>\n
21.  Learned counsel  for the  appellant has referred to the
\ndecisions in  Nishi Kant  Jha Versus The State of Bihar 1969
\n(1) S.C.C.  347. Harchand  Singh &  Another Versus  State of
\nHaryana (1970)\t3 S.C.C.  397. Makhan  Singh Versus State of
\nPunjab 1988  (Supp) S.C.C.  526. Chhittar  Versus  State  of
\nRajasthan 1995\tSupp. (4)  S.C.C.519. None of the rulings is
\nof any\thelp to\t the appellant\tas  the\t facts\ttherein\t are
\nentirely different.  The principles  on which extra-judicial
\nconfession could  form the  basis of  a conviction  are well
\nsettled. We  have already  referred to the judgment in State
\nof U.P.\t Versus M.K.  Anthony (Supra) and Manquli Dei Versus
\nState of Orissa (supra). We may usefully add the decision in
\nPiara Singh and others Versus State of Punjab AIR  1977 S.C.
\n2274. In  that case  it was  held that\tlaw does not require
\nthat the  evidence of an extra judicial confession should in
\nall cases  be corroborated  and where  such  confession\t was
\nproved by  an independent  witness  who\t was  a\t responsible
\nofficer and  who bore  no animus  against the accused, there
\nwas hardly any justification to dis-believe the same.\n<\/p>\n
22.  In the  result we\thave no\t hesitation  to\t uphold\t the
\njudgment of  the High  Court in\t so  far  as  it  finds\t the
\nappellant to be guilty of committing the murder of his wife.
\nThe conviction is therefore upheld.\n<\/p>\n
23.  However, we  are not satisfied that this is a rarest of
\nrare cases  in order  to warrant  award of death sentence to
\nthe appellant.\tThe ends of justice would be met by reducing
\nthe sentence  to one of imprisonment for life. The appeal is
\nallowed to  that extent\t and the  sentence  awarded  to\t the
\nappellant is altered into one of imprisonment for life.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 Author: Srinivasan Bench: Chief Justice India, M. Srinivasan PETITIONER: VINAYAK SHIVAJIRAO POL Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/1998 BENCH: CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, M. SRINIVASAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present […]<\/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-80466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 - 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\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-10T15:51:40+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T15:51:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3532,\"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\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\",\"name\":\"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T15:51:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 - 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\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-10T15:51:40+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998","datePublished":"1998-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T15:51:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998"},"wordCount":3532,"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\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998","name":"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T15:51:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-shivajirao-pol-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-january-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinayak Shivajirao Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 1998"}]},{"@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\/80466","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=80466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}