{"id":84497,"date":"2010-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-20T03:40:27","modified_gmt":"2018-01-19T22:10:27","slug":"meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar<\/div>\n
                                              1\n\n                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.730 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Rasiklal Makhanji Solanki, (Through Jail)\n    R\/o.Dr.Nair Road,  Junction of\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha Mandir,\n    Near Signal No.13, Mumbai-11.                                 .. Appellant\n           V\/s\n    The State of Maharashtra\n    (At the instance of Agripada Police \n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Station in C.R.No.115\/2000)                                   .. Respondent\n                                  \n    Mr.Abhaykumar Apte for the Appellant.\n    Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State.\n                                 \n                                       CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR &\n                                               R.G.KETKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                         DATE :  5TH FEBRUARY, 2010<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :                (Per P.B.Majmudar, J.)<\/p>\n
        1. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and   order   of <\/p>\n
           conviction recorded by  the learned  Additional  Sessions Judge, <\/p>\n
           Greater Bombay dated June 13, 2002 in Sessions Case No.952 of <\/p>\n
           2000.  By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge convicted <\/p>\n
           the appellant accused for the offence punishable u\/s.302 Indian <\/p>\n
           Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with <\/p>\n
           fine of Rs.5000\/, in default to pay fine to suffer further R.I.for <\/p>\n
           four months.\n<\/p>\n
        2. Appellant   is   the   original   accused   in   Sessions   Case   No.952   of <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2000.  It is the case of the prosecution that  on June 23, 2000 <\/p>\n
    one female between the age of 41 to 47 years, namely Vidya <\/p>\n
    Prabhudesai was murdered at the Nair Hospital Junction, near <\/p>\n
    Maratha Mandir Theatre at around 9.30 a.m.    As per the case <\/p>\n
    of the prosecution, Accused Rasiklal   Solanki who was a tailor <\/p>\n
    by occupation was acquainted with the family members of the <\/p>\n
    deceased Vidya Prabhudesai.  As per the case of the prosecution, <\/p>\n
    the   accused   was   having   love   affair   with   the   deceased   Vidya <\/p>\n
    Prabudesai.  Accused had proposed deceased Vidya for marriage <\/p>\n
    and   the   deceased   Vidya   had   refused   the   said   proposal.,   and <\/p>\n
    because   of   that   refusal   Accused   was   got   annoyed   with   the <\/p>\n
    deceased.   As per the case of the prosecution, deceased Vidya <\/p>\n
    Prabhudesai   was   serving   in   the   Reserve   Bank   of   India   as   a <\/p>\n
    typist.  She used to go to the office at about 9.00 to 9.20 a.m <\/p>\n
    everyday. She was residing at R.B.I.Quarter at Bombay Central.\n<\/p>\n
    On the relevant date on June 23, 2000 she had started from her <\/p>\n
    house for going to the office in the morning and at that time <\/p>\n
    the accused followed her. It is the case of the prosecution that <\/p>\n
    accused Rasiklal  stopped her,  poured kerosene on her and  set <\/p>\n
    her on fire by lighting match-stick, because of which she started <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
      burning   on   the   road.   At   the   aforesaid   time,   one   Manoj <\/p>\n
      Bhatnagar   came   running   and   poured   water   on   the   body   of <\/p>\n
      Vidya to extinquish the fire and thereafter telephoned to the <\/p>\n
      police on Phone Number 100 and informed about the incident <\/p>\n
      of burning of Vidya. Police arrived on the sopt immediately, and <\/p>\n
      in the meanwhile one lady by name Mrs.Gulshan Kwatra  also <\/p>\n
      came at the scene of incident. At that time Vidya disclosed that <\/p>\n
      Accused   Rasiklal   had   poured   kerosene   and   set   her   on   fire.\n<\/p>\n
      Deceased   Vidya   also   gave   phone   number   of   her   sister   to <\/p>\n
      Mrs.Kwatra,   who   thereupon   called   up   Vidya’s   sister   on   her <\/p>\n
      mobile   phone   and   informed   about   the   burning   incident   and <\/p>\n
      asked her to come to Nair Hospital as Vidya was shifted to Nair <\/p>\n
      Hospital by the police who had arrived on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
    3. As per the case of the prosecution, one Kishore Kadam who was <\/p>\n
      attending his duty as Station House Officer at Agripada Police <\/p>\n
      Station   and   who   had   received   the   message   from   Nagpada <\/p>\n
      Mobile   No.1   about   the   incident,   rushed   to   the   spot   and <\/p>\n
      thereafter   immediately   deceased   Vidya   was   shifted   to   Nair <\/p>\n
      Hospital.  It is the case of the prosecution that Mr.Kadam, after <\/p>\n
      taking permission  of Dr.Narendra Desai, recorded the statement <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
    of   deceased   Vidya     which   was   treated   as   FIR   against   the <\/p>\n
    Accused.   On the basis of the same, offence was registered at <\/p>\n
    C.R.No.115\/2000   of   Agripada   Police   Statio   for   the   offence <\/p>\n
    punishable u\/s.307 IPC (as at the relevant time deceased was <\/p>\n
    alive).   PSI Mr.Kadam thereafter rushed to the spot and drew <\/p>\n
    spot panchanama. One team of the police went to the shop of <\/p>\n
    the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the <\/p>\n
    meanwhile accused also consumed poison and was admitted in <\/p>\n
    Nair   hospital.   The   Investigating   Offricer   Mr.Kadam,   thereafter <\/p>\n
    contacted   SEO   Ms.Deepali   Chavan,   who   recorded   dying <\/p>\n
    declaration   of   deceased   Vidya   Mr.Kadam,   the   Investigating <\/p>\n
    Officer   thereater   recorded   statements   of   two   sisters   and   one <\/p>\n
    brother of deceased Vidya on the same day and also recorded <\/p>\n
    statements of other witnesses.   Panchanama of clothes of the <\/p>\n
    deceased Vidya was drawn. Deceased Vidya succumbed to the <\/p>\n
    injuries on June 23, 2000 at 7.10 p.m.   Thereafter the accused <\/p>\n
    who was also taking treatment in the Nair Hospital was shown <\/p>\n
    arrested.   After   completion   of   investigation,   police   filed <\/p>\n
    chargesheet. The charge was framed by the Court against the <\/p>\n
    accused   u\/s.302   IPC   on   April   30,   2002.   Accused   pleaded   not <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
      guilty   to   the   charge   and   thereafter   the   trial   was   conducted <\/p>\n
      against the accused for the aforesaid offence.\n<\/p>\n
    4. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses to prove its case.\n<\/p>\n
      The statement of the accused was also recorded u\/s.313 of the <\/p>\n
      Cr.P.C.   The   learned   Judge,   after   considering   the   evidence   on <\/p>\n
      record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved <\/p>\n
      its   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   it   was   held   that   the <\/p>\n
      accused   committed   murder   of   the   deceased   and   accordingly <\/p>\n
      inflicted life imprisonment on the appellant accused with fine of <\/p>\n
      Rs.5000\/-   in   default,   to   suffer   R.I.for   four   months.   Being <\/p>\n
      aggrieved by  the aforesaid conviction,  the appellant   filed this <\/p>\n
      Criminal Appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    5. Mr.Apte, the learned Advocate for the Appellant Accused submits <\/p>\n
      that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case.\n<\/p>\n
      According to him the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is <\/p>\n
      not believable. It is submitted that looking to the fact that the <\/p>\n
      deceased had suffered  about  95%  burns  it  is  not  possible  to <\/p>\n
      believe that at the relevant time she must be in a proper state <\/p>\n
      of mind   to give statement to the police which is treated as <\/p>\n
      FIR.. The learned Advocate for the appellant accused has further <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    submitted that Dr.Desai who has certified below the aforesaid <\/p>\n
    FIR has not been examined by the prosecution. It is submitted <\/p>\n
    that the verbal Dying Declaration given to PW7 and PW8 are <\/p>\n
    absolutely doubtful and not believable at all. It is submitted that <\/p>\n
    even the so-called written Dying Declaration recorded by PW1 is <\/p>\n
    doubtful   and   creates   doubt   and   not   believable   at   all.     The <\/p>\n
    learned   Advocate   for   the   appellant   accused   submitted   that   it <\/p>\n
    cannot be said that  PW3  and  PW4 must  have  witnessed  the <\/p>\n
    incident and they cannot be said to be eye-witnesses at all. The <\/p>\n
    learned   Advocate   for   the   appellant   accused   further   submitted <\/p>\n
    that   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   motive   in <\/p>\n
    connection with the crime in question and therefore the case of <\/p>\n
    the   prosecution   is   highly   improbable.     According   to   him,   it <\/p>\n
    cannot   be   said   that   the   appellant   accused   tried   to   commit <\/p>\n
    suicide only because of failure in the matter of so-called love <\/p>\n
    affair with the deceased  Vidya. It is submitted by the learned <\/p>\n
    Advocate for the appellant accused that the prosecution has not <\/p>\n
    led any satisfactory evidence to show that the accused had any <\/p>\n
    such  relations with the deceased, nor any witnesses have said <\/p>\n
    this aspect in their evidence.   It is submitted that the clothes <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
      of the accused were sent to the forensic test.  According to him, <\/p>\n
      looking to the fact that the deceased received about 95% burn <\/p>\n
      injuries,   it   is   not   possible   to   believe   that   she   must   be   in   a <\/p>\n
      proper state of mind at the relevant time to narrate the alleged <\/p>\n
      incident. The learned Advocate for the appellant accused further <\/p>\n
      submitted   that   when   the   credibility   of   Dying   Declaration   is <\/p>\n
      doubtful, such a Dying Declaration cannot be made basis for <\/p>\n
      recording   conviction   of   the   appellant   especially   when   no <\/p>\n
      certificate  was  given   by   Doctor   that   the  deceased  was  in   fit <\/p>\n
      state   of   mind   at   the   relevant   time   to   give   statement.   The <\/p>\n
      learned Advocate for the   appellant accused further submitted <\/p>\n
      that no weightage should be given to such Dying Declaration on <\/p>\n
      which the prosecution   had relied upon, as it cannot be said <\/p>\n
      that   such   Dying   Declaration   was     properly   recorded.   It   is <\/p>\n
      submitted that since the Dying Delcaration is not signed by the <\/p>\n
      deceased, no reliance should have been placed on the same. It <\/p>\n
      is   further   submitted   that   when   the   Dying   Declaration   is   not <\/p>\n
      proved by reliable evidence, accused should be given benefit of <\/p>\n
      doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    6. The learned APP Ms.Deshmukh submitted that the prosecution <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
    has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading proper <\/p>\n
    evidence.   It   is   submitted   by   her   that   PW3   who   is   an <\/p>\n
    independent   witness   has   seen   the   incident   and   there   is   no <\/p>\n
    reason   to   disbelieve   the   evidence   of   the   said   witness.   It   is <\/p>\n
    further submitted by the learned APP that similarly, PW4 has <\/p>\n
    also seen the incident and therefore both PW3 and PW4 are eye <\/p>\n
    witnesses.   It   is submitted   by   the  learned   APP   Ms.Deshmukh <\/p>\n
    that PW3 immediately made a call  to the sister of the deceased <\/p>\n
    as   at   the   relevant   time   deceased   Vidya   herself     had   given <\/p>\n
    mobile number of her sister to PW3, and on the basis of that <\/p>\n
    call, the information was given  to the relatives of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
    It   is   submitted   that   there   is   no   reason     for   PW3   to   falsely <\/p>\n
    implicate   the   accused   as   in   fact   she   was   not   knowing   the <\/p>\n
    accused prior to the incident, nor she was knowing the deceased <\/p>\n
    Vidya. The learned APP further submitted that even if PW3 may <\/p>\n
    be treated as chance witness, then also the testimony of the <\/p>\n
    same if found credible, cannot be discarded merely because such <\/p>\n
    a witness happened to be present by chance. It is submitted that <\/p>\n
    adequate   explanation   has   been   given   by   PW3   regarding   her <\/p>\n
    presence at the place of occurence and her testimony cannot be <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
    brushed aside.  The learned APP has futher submitted that the <\/p>\n
    Investigating Officer has recorded the FIR at Exh.37 wherein at <\/p>\n
    the relevant time, deceased had given full particulars as she was <\/p>\n
    in full senses as per the certificate of the Doctor. Learned APP <\/p>\n
    further   submitted   that   the   prosecution   has   established   the <\/p>\n
    motive by proving the fact that the accused was having love <\/p>\n
    affiair   with   deceased   Vidya,   and   since   deceased   Vidya   had <\/p>\n
    refused the proposal for matrimonial ties, the appellant accused <\/p>\n
    in a revengeful manner took such a ghastly step to kill deceased <\/p>\n
    Vidya by pouring kerosene in day light and setting her on fire <\/p>\n
    on the road.   The learned APP has further submitted that the <\/p>\n
    appellant accused after setting deceased Vidya on fire ran away <\/p>\n
    and   on   reaching   his   tailoring   shop   which   is   at   the   short <\/p>\n
    distance from the place of incident, he consumed poison, and in <\/p>\n
    fact   he   was   also   admitted   at   the   hospital.   According   to   her, <\/p>\n
    though the appellant accused survived later on, such an act on <\/p>\n
    the part of the appellant accused consuming poison immediately <\/p>\n
    after committing the aforesaid offence of pouring kerosene and <\/p>\n
    setting   the   deceased   Vidya   on   fire,   itself   proves   that   he   has <\/p>\n
    committed the offence with motive. According to Ms.Deshmukh, <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
      when in a given case there is evidence of eye-witnesses who <\/p>\n
      might have witnessed the incident, it is not necessary to prove <\/p>\n
      the motive in such a case.  According to her in the present case <\/p>\n
      motive is also proved and the facts of the case clearly establish <\/p>\n
      that it is accused and accused only who committed murder of <\/p>\n
      the deceased Vidya simply because she had not acceded to his <\/p>\n
      demand of marriage. It is further submitted by the learned APP <\/p>\n
      that   in   view   of   the   evidence   on   record,   it   can   safely   be <\/p>\n
      presumed   that   the   prosecution   has   proved   its   case   beyond <\/p>\n
      reasonable doubt and no interference against the judgment & <\/p>\n
      order   recorded   by   the   Sessions   Court   is   called   for   in   this <\/p>\n
      Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    7. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant accused and <\/p>\n
      the learned APP for the State at legth, and we have also gone <\/p>\n
      through the evidence on record.  On behalf of the prosecution, <\/p>\n
      one Deepali Chavan was examined as PW1 at Exh.8. The said <\/p>\n
      witness has said that since 1997 to 2001 she worked as Special <\/p>\n
      Executive Officer in Mumbai. According to her deposition, she <\/p>\n
      was contacted by the Agripada Police on June 23, 2000 and was <\/p>\n
      informed for recording dying declaration of one lady by name <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Vidya Prabhudesai at Kasturba  Hospital. The said  witness has <\/p>\n
    deposed that after taking necessary writing material and stamp <\/p>\n
    etc.she   went   to   Kasturba   Gandhi   Hospital.   She   stated   that <\/p>\n
    though she did not know the actual time when she reached the <\/p>\n
    hospital,   according   to   her   she   must   have   reached   there   by <\/p>\n
    afternoon. This witness has stated that when she saw deceased <\/p>\n
    Vidya Prabhudesai, she was alone and she was conscious and <\/p>\n
    could speak well.   This witness has further stated that, to the <\/p>\n
    enquiry     in   connection   with   the   cause   of   incident,   deceased <\/p>\n
    Vidya   answered   those   questions.   According   to   this   witness, <\/p>\n
    deceased Vidya told her that on June 23, 2000 when she left her <\/p>\n
    house in the morning to go to her office and at that time when <\/p>\n
    she   had   reached   upto   Maratha   Mandir   Junction   at   Bombay <\/p>\n
    Central  and at the time when she was crossing the road, one <\/p>\n
    known  person  viz.Rasik   Solanki    came  from  backside,  poured <\/p>\n
    kerosene on her and set her on fire. PW1 has also stated in her <\/p>\n
    deposition that deceased Vidya had made a statement before her <\/p>\n
    that   accused   Rasik   Solanki   was   a   tailor   and   was   acquainted <\/p>\n
    with her.  PW1 has further deposed  that deceased Vidya gave <\/p>\n
    statement without any pressure. According to the deposition of <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
      PW1, the statement given by deceased Vidya was recorded by <\/p>\n
      PW1 in her own handwriting and thereupon she signed below <\/p>\n
      the said statement and put her stamp on it. According to her <\/p>\n
      Exh.9 is the carbon copy of the original Dying Declaration and <\/p>\n
      the contents are ditto. We have also perused the original dying <\/p>\n
      declaration at Exh.14 as well as its carbon copy at Exh.9. So far <\/p>\n
      as   Exh.14   which   is   the   original   Dying   Declaration,   there   is <\/p>\n
      endorsement of Doctor Shah that the patient Vidya Prabhudesai, <\/p>\n
      indoor   patient   No.134   is   conscious   and   is   in   a   state   to   give <\/p>\n
      statement. The statement recorded by PW1 is in the questions <\/p>\n
      and answers form at Exh.14 below which Doctor Shah has made <\/p>\n
      the   endorsement.     So   far   as   Exh.14   is   concerned,   it   is   the <\/p>\n
      original Dying Declaration and Exh.9 is its carbon copy.\n<\/p>\n
    8. The prosecution has also examined one Jokhand Jaiswal as PW2 <\/p>\n
      at Exh.15, who was called as panch-witness by the police on <\/p>\n
      26th June 2000 by 12 noon.  PW2 has stated that his son used <\/p>\n
      to run the tailoring shop and since his son had gone to the <\/p>\n
      native place 6 months prior to the incident,  he had let the said <\/p>\n
      tailoring   shop   to   the   appellant   accused   (Rasik   Solanki)   to <\/p>\n
      conduct the business of tailoring for a temporary period. PW2 <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
      has further stated that  when the police called him, he went to <\/p>\n
      the shop with the police and at that time there was a smell of <\/p>\n
      kerosene in the said shop. PW2 has deposed that he also saw <\/p>\n
      one empty bottle in the shop. PW2 has further stated that he <\/p>\n
      also noticed one bottle of poison in the shop  containing little <\/p>\n
      quantity  of  green  coloured  liquid  in   the  said  bottle.     In   the <\/p>\n
      cross examination, this witness PW2 has stated that the fact that <\/p>\n
      one   empty   bottle   was   found   is   not   mentioned   in   the <\/p>\n
      panchanama,   but   he   denied   the   suggestion   that   no   kerosene <\/p>\n
      smell was coming out from the room\/shop. The panchanama is <\/p>\n
      at Exh.16 on the record.\n<\/p>\n
    9. The prosecution also examined Mr.Gulshan Kwatra at Exh.17 as <\/p>\n
      PW3. The said witness has stated that she is the social worker <\/p>\n
      and is working for the N.G.O.. As per the evidence of the said <\/p>\n
      witness on 23th June, 2000 she had gone to Bombay Central <\/p>\n
      Railway  Station  to  receive  her   daughter     who   was  to   arrive <\/p>\n
      from Delhi by Rajdhani Express.  On that day the  train was 40 <\/p>\n
      minutes late and arrived at around 9.30 am. It is stated by the <\/p>\n
      said witness that alongwith her daughter she sat in the car and <\/p>\n
      they proceeded towards her house at Chembur and the driver <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
    drove   car   towards   the   Maratha   Mandir   Junction.   When   the <\/p>\n
    driver saw in the mirror of the car he told the said witness that <\/p>\n
    there   was   crowd   at   the   crossing   and   something   must   have <\/p>\n
    happened. The said witness has stated that she looked back and <\/p>\n
    saw flames. She instructed driver to stop the car. She alighted <\/p>\n
    from the car and went towards the crowd and flames. The said <\/p>\n
    witness saw that one lady was ablazed. She had stated that she <\/p>\n
    reached near the lady and that somebody had poured water on <\/p>\n
    her.   The fire was extinquished due to water. She has stated <\/p>\n
    that   the   clothes   of   the   lady   were   completely   burnt   and   the <\/p>\n
    pieces of her skin were lying around, however she was fully <\/p>\n
    conscious. The witness has stated that she tried to get maximum <\/p>\n
    information   from   the   victim   and   she   asked   her   about   the <\/p>\n
    incident.  Thereupon she was told by the lady (victim) that she <\/p>\n
    was working in Reserve Bank of India, and one person by name <\/p>\n
    Rasik Solanki who was a Tailor   by occupation was after her <\/p>\n
    with a marriage proposal and that she had refused to marry <\/p>\n
    him. She further told to the said witness that Rasik Solanki had <\/p>\n
    threatened her to kill, and that the act of pouring kerosene and <\/p>\n
    setting her on fire was done by him. Victim told her name as <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
    Vidya   Prabhudesai   and   gave   her   sister’s   phone   number.   This <\/p>\n
    witness thereafter informed about the incident to her sister on <\/p>\n
    her mobile and in the meanwhile the police had arrived at the <\/p>\n
    spot of occurence. The witness however stated that she was told <\/p>\n
    by the police that they are taking the victim  to Nair hospital <\/p>\n
    and accordingly she informed the sister of the victim to come to <\/p>\n
    casualty of the Nair Hospital.  The said witness has also further <\/p>\n
    stated that when she informed the sister of the victim about the <\/p>\n
    incident, she immediately reacted that this was going to happen <\/p>\n
    one day as he used to give threats to her sister.   The witness <\/p>\n
    has said that she had not gone to Nair Hospital, but she kept <\/p>\n
    on following  the matter till she knew about Vidya’s death, and <\/p>\n
    on   June   24,   2000   her   statement   was   recorded   by   the   police.\n<\/p>\n
    The said witness has stated in the cross-examination that about <\/p>\n
    40 persons were gathered at the spot. She has further stated in <\/p>\n
    the   cross-examination   that   nobody   from   the   crowd   came <\/p>\n
    forward except one person who poured water on her. She has <\/p>\n
    stated that she informed the traffic police to contact Agripada <\/p>\n
    police station and inform about the incident.  According to her, <\/p>\n
    she gave all the information to the police which she got from <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
      Vidya.  In the cross-examination she said that she had borrowed <\/p>\n
      the piece of paper from somebody and noted all the details of <\/p>\n
      conversation. .   She stated that she had not handed over that <\/p>\n
      piece of paper to the police but handed over her visiting card <\/p>\n
      to the police. She further stated that Vidya was not unconscious <\/p>\n
      when she was shifted to the hospital.  She was semi conscious <\/p>\n
      when she was sent to the hospital. She denied the suggestion <\/p>\n
      that Vidya had not given the name of Rasiklal Solanki as an <\/p>\n
      offender.\n<\/p>\n
    10. The prosecution also examined Manoj Bhatnagar as PW4 at Exh.\n<\/p>\n
      18,  who had deposed that,  on the relevant day at about 9.30 <\/p>\n
      am while he was at cigarette shop near Nair hospital and was <\/p>\n
      smoking, at that time one boy in the shop told him that there <\/p>\n
      was some incident. So he looked towards that direction towards <\/p>\n
      the Maratha Mandir.  He said that he saw one man holding a <\/p>\n
      plastic container and was trying to hit with his other hand to <\/p>\n
      one lady who was ahead of that man.  This witness has further <\/p>\n
      stated that within few seconds he saw same man on the middle <\/p>\n
      of the road standing on the divider and tried to lit the match <\/p>\n
      box.  This witness further stated that when he ran towards the <\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
      spot he saw the lady on the other side of the road. This witness <\/p>\n
      has   further   stated   that   before   he   reached   to   the   lady,   that <\/p>\n
      person   (accused)   had   set   the   lady   on   fire.   This   witness   has <\/p>\n
      further   stated   that   thereafter   he   turned   back   towards   the <\/p>\n
      Vadapao shop, lifted the can of water, went near the lady and <\/p>\n
      poured the water on her.     This witness has said that on the <\/p>\n
      next day he read in the newspaper about the burning of that <\/p>\n
      lady,  and there was the photograph of one person  and he was <\/p>\n
      the offender.   He identified him as the same person who had <\/p>\n
      set her on fire.\n<\/p>\n
    11. The prosecution has also examined the sister of the deceased <\/p>\n
      viz.Vaishali Vasant Bapat at Exh.5.  She said that Rasiklal Solanki <\/p>\n
      who is tailor by occupation used to come to her sister-in-law’s <\/p>\n
      house   for   the   work.   She   has   further   stated   stated   that   her <\/p>\n
      another   sister   Shailaja   Prabhudesai   (who   expired   in   the   year <\/p>\n
      1989),   was having a sewing machine and after her death, the <\/p>\n
      said sewing  machine  was  disposed of  and  was  purchased  by <\/p>\n
      said Mr.Rasik Solanki, who as also known as Rasik Makwana.\n<\/p>\n
      This   witness   has   identified   the   accused   Rasik   Solanki   in   the <\/p>\n
      Court.     She further stated that herself as well as her sister <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       18<\/span><\/p>\n
    Vidya started giving clothes for stitching to the said person and <\/p>\n
    he became friendly with the family and he used to help them <\/p>\n
    in   doing   other   work   also.       She   stated   that   in   the   year <\/p>\n
    1999-2000 when her father was serious, he (Rasik) used to visit <\/p>\n
    her   father   also.   The   said   witness   has   stated   about   receiving <\/p>\n
    telephone call on June 23, 2000 at around 10.30 am  and stated <\/p>\n
    that her daughter attended the said call, and that after receiving <\/p>\n
    the news on the phone she was shocked and started treambling.\n<\/p>\n
    She   informed   the   said   fact   to   her   another   sister   Varsha <\/p>\n
    Prabhudesai and both the sisters went to Nair hospital to see <\/p>\n
    Vidya. According to this witness when she went to Nair hospital <\/p>\n
    she was informed that Vidya was shifted to Kasturba hospital <\/p>\n
    and therefore she went to Kasturba hospital.   She stated that <\/p>\n
    when she saw Vidya she was burnt, her face was swollen but <\/p>\n
    was   not   burnt.   This   witness     has   stated   that   they   saw   the <\/p>\n
    accused at Nair hospital on 7th floor.  He was also admitted in <\/p>\n
    the Nair hospital and he was serious. This witness has further <\/p>\n
    stated in the cross-examination that Vidya was residing in the <\/p>\n
    R.B.I.quarter since six years prior to the incident  and she used <\/p>\n
    to meet Vidya often and used to stay with her for 2\/3 days.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
    12. One Harish Bhargav Shelar is examined as PW6 at Exh.20. The <\/p>\n
       said witness has stated that as the accused Rasik Solanki was a <\/p>\n
       tailor by occupation and used to stitch blouses of his mother, he <\/p>\n
       knew him since his childhood. This witness has further stated <\/p>\n
       that on June 23, 2000 at around 10.30 to 10.45 a.m he heard that <\/p>\n
       the accused had consumed poison, and when he rushed to the <\/p>\n
       tailoring shop he saw people gathered in the shop. This witness <\/p>\n
       states that there was one tailor Babubhai and he was trying to <\/p>\n
       lift the accused. This witness states that he saw the accused <\/p>\n
       lying in the shop and was shouting as save me, save me.  This <\/p>\n
       witness states that he lifted the accused and took him to Nair <\/p>\n
       hospital.\n<\/p>\n
    13. One   Rajiv   Prabhudesai   was   examined   as   PW7   at   Exh.21.\n<\/p>\n
       Deceased Vidya was the sister of the said witness.  This witness <\/p>\n
       stated that he was told by deceased Vidya on the relevant day <\/p>\n
       when he went to Kasturba hospital at around 12.30 to 1.00 p.m, <\/p>\n
       deceased Vidya talked with him and told that Rasik Solanki had <\/p>\n
       poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and thereafter ran <\/p>\n
       away.       In   the   cross-examination   this   witness   said   that   the <\/p>\n
       accused   became   family   friend   after   he   purchased   sewing <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                        20<\/span><\/p>\n
      machine from his sister.\n<\/p>\n
    14. The prosecution has also examined Varsha Sudhakar Prabhudesai <\/p>\n
      as PW8, who is the sister of deceased Vidya,   at Exh.23.   The <\/p>\n
      said witness has stated that she knew Rasik Solanki and she <\/p>\n
      identified Rasik Solanki in Court.   She said that she used to <\/p>\n
      give him stitching work and he used to come for some work to <\/p>\n
      her father’s house  and used to attend her sick father also. She <\/p>\n
      has stated that when she was told that one unknown person <\/p>\n
      had burnt her sister Vidya on the road she alongwith her sister <\/p>\n
      Vaishali immediately went to Nair hospital at around 11.30 am.\n<\/p>\n
      She has further stated that when she sent to Nair hospital she <\/p>\n
      saw her sister Vidya burnt. She stated that deceased Vidya told <\/p>\n
      her that she was burnt by Rasik Solanki on the road by pouring <\/p>\n
      kerosene. In  the  cross-examination   she   said   that   she   took   45 <\/p>\n
      minutes to come from Bombay Central to Malad and she further <\/p>\n
      said   she   did   not   remember   in   which   ward   Vidya   was   lying.\n<\/p>\n
      She stated that accused used to come to their father’s house <\/p>\n
      nearly 10\/15 times in a month and the relationship with the <\/p>\n
      accused was very good.\n<\/p>\n
    15. One Sangita Manohar Revalekar was examined as PW9 at Exh.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       21<\/span><\/p>\n
      24. She stated that she was running one grocery shop and STD <\/p>\n
      Booth   and   was   knowing   Rasik   Solanki.   She   identified   Rasik <\/p>\n
      Solanki in the Court. She stated that she knew Rasik Solanki <\/p>\n
      since childhood as he used to stitch the blouses of the ladies in <\/p>\n
      their locality. She stated that on June 23, 2000 at 10 to 10.30 am, <\/p>\n
      there was a crowd near the shop of the accused so she went to <\/p>\n
      his shop. She saw accused lying in underwear and was shouting <\/p>\n
      Bachao Bachao, and when she asked him as to what happened, <\/p>\n
      he  told  her  that   he  had  consumed  poison   as  he  was  under <\/p>\n
      tension since last 8\/10 days.  In the cross-examination she stated <\/p>\n
      that Rasik Solanki used to receive telephone call from one lady <\/p>\n
      and she used to disclose her identity as Madam.\n<\/p>\n
    16. The prosecution has also examined Dr.Ashok Chhotalal Shah as <\/p>\n
      PW10   at   Exh.26.   The   said   witness   said   that   victim   Vidya <\/p>\n
      Prabhudesai   was   transferred   from   Nair   hospital   to   Kasturba <\/p>\n
      hospital.   According   to   him,   he   was   working   as   Hon.Plastic <\/p>\n
      Surgeon   and   was   head   of   the   Department   of   Burns   Unit   in <\/p>\n
      Kasturba Hospital.      He stated that Vidya was admitted  in <\/p>\n
      Kasturba hospital at 12.20 hours. She was burnt 95%. He said <\/p>\n
      that as per the case papers she was burnt by kerosene. The said <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                        22<\/span><\/p>\n
      witness has stated that at the time when Vidya was admitted in <\/p>\n
      the hospital, she was in serious condition and was   not in a <\/p>\n
      condition to give her statement. When this witness was shown <\/p>\n
      Exh.14, he stated that he cannot identify the handwriting of the <\/p>\n
      Medical   Officer   who   has   made   the   endorsement   on   that <\/p>\n
      document.   He   stated   that   the   resident   doctors   who   were <\/p>\n
      working under him might have given the same. In the cross-\n<\/p>\n
      examination this witness Dr.Shah  stated that a person who  has <\/p>\n
      95%   burnt     can   talk,   but   may   not   be   in   a   stable   mental <\/p>\n
      condition to give any statement due to shock, two hours after <\/p>\n
      the incident of burning.\n<\/p>\n
    17. The prosecution has also examined Dr.Ravindra R.Kadam as PW <\/p>\n
      12 at Exh.30, who was attached to Kasturba Hospital as a Chief <\/p>\n
      Medical Officer on June 23, 2000.  The said Dr.Kadam stated that <\/p>\n
      at   the   time   when   Vidya   Prabhudesai   was   admitted   in   their <\/p>\n
      hospital one Dr.Suhas   had attended patient Vidya and at that <\/p>\n
      time he was also present with Dr.Suhas. He further stated that <\/p>\n
      he   remained   there   for   nearly   two   hours   when   Vidya   was <\/p>\n
      admitted   in   the   hospital.   According   to   him   Vidya   was   fully <\/p>\n
      conscious and was responding to every query made to her.  This <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                         23<\/span><\/p>\n
       witness   Dr.Kadam   has   also   identified   the   hand-writing   of <\/p>\n
       Dr.Suhas   and   stated   that   since   he   worked   with  him   for   two <\/p>\n
       months in Kasturba hospital, he knew his handwriting and the <\/p>\n
       signature.   The medical  examination report of the patient by <\/p>\n
       Kasturba Hospital Burns Unit is produced on record. As per the <\/p>\n
       same   the   diagnosis   of   the   deceased   Vidya   is   shown   as   95% <\/p>\n
       superficial   to   deep   burn   injuries,   and   so   far   as   relative <\/p>\n
       percentage of injury to her hands is concerned, it is shown as <\/p>\n
       6%, which is apparent as per the details shown on page No.94.\n<\/p>\n
    18. The   prosecution   has   also   examined   Mr.Lokesh   Laxmi   Gauda, <\/p>\n
       PW13 at Exh.33.  This witness states that he was called upon by <\/p>\n
       the   police   near   Nair   Hospital   and   Maratha   Mandir   Theatre.\n<\/p>\n
       According to the said witness one burnt bag\/purse was lying on <\/p>\n
       the road and in that bag one black colour Umbrella and one <\/p>\n
       black   colour   purse   was   found.   In   that   purse   he   found   one <\/p>\n
       identity card with the photography of one female. The identity <\/p>\n
       card was of Reserve Bank of India and one burnt note of Rs.10 <\/p>\n
       was also found in the purse. He states that the panchanama in <\/p>\n
       this behalf was prepared in his presence.\n<\/p>\n
    19. The   prosecution   has   also   examined   Investigating   Officer <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       24<\/span><\/p>\n
    Mr.Kishore Dattaraya Kadam as PW14 at Exh.35. He stated that <\/p>\n
    on June 23, 2000 he joined duty as a Station House Officer at <\/p>\n
    Agripada Police Station at 8.00 a.m., and at 10.05 am he received <\/p>\n
    a   message   from   PSI   Shaikh   who   was   on   duty   at   Nagpada <\/p>\n
    Mobile No.1 that at Nair Hospital Junction one female was set <\/p>\n
    on   fire   after   pouring   kerosene   on   her.   According   to   him,   he <\/p>\n
    reported   this   information   to   his   senior   officers   and   then   he <\/p>\n
    rushed   to   the   spot   alongwith   the   staff   after   making   Station <\/p>\n
    Diary Entry.     He states that after reaching at Nair Junction <\/p>\n
    near Maratha Mandir Theatre, he met the police from Nagpada <\/p>\n
    Mobile No.1 and one of them told him that they have admitted <\/p>\n
    the lady to Nair Hospital for medical treatment. According to <\/p>\n
    him he thereafter went to Nair Hospital. He states that when he <\/p>\n
    reached to Nair Hospital,   the burnt lady was in Ward No.28 <\/p>\n
    and Dr.Narendra Desai was attending to that lady.  According to <\/p>\n
    him when he enquired with the Doctor whether the lady was in <\/p>\n
    fit condition to make any statement, Dr.Desai told him that the <\/p>\n
    lady was conscious and was in fit condition to make statement, <\/p>\n
    and therefore he recorded the statement of that lady as per her <\/p>\n
    narration at around 10.30 a.m.   As per the recorded statement <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       25<\/span><\/p>\n
    lady told him that she was acquainted with one Rasik Sonanki <\/p>\n
    and was having a love affair with him.   It was further stated <\/p>\n
    that Rasik Solanki had proposed her but she turned down the <\/p>\n
    said   marriage   proposal   and   because   of   that   reason,   Rasik <\/p>\n
    Solanki got annoyed and had started suspecting that she was <\/p>\n
    having   an   affair   with   some   other   person.   This   witness   has <\/p>\n
    further stated that it was  narrated  to  him by  Vidya that  on <\/p>\n
    June 23, 2000 at around 9.15 am when she left her house to go <\/p>\n
    to   her   office,   near   Nair   Junction,     Rasik   Solanki   came   from <\/p>\n
    backside  and he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by <\/p>\n
    throwing matchstick on her, and thereafter ran away. According <\/p>\n
    to this witness, the statement of Vidya was recorded by him and <\/p>\n
    after confirming the correctness and truthfulness of the same <\/p>\n
    from Vidya, her thumb impression was obtained on the same, as <\/p>\n
    she could not sign because of finger burns.   According to him <\/p>\n
    Dr.Narendra Desai has made the endorsement below the thumb <\/p>\n
    impression in his presence.   According to this witness, FIR is <\/p>\n
    marked at Exh.37, on the basis of which ultimately, offence was <\/p>\n
    registered at Agripada  Police Station at C.R.No.115\/2000 under <\/p>\n
    Section 307 of the IPC.   This witness has further stated about <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                         26<\/span><\/p>\n
      preparing of panchanama of the secne of offence and seizure of <\/p>\n
      burnt purse, umbrella, calculator, etc.This witness has stated that <\/p>\n
      all   articles   viz.clothes   etc.were   sent   to   chemical   analysis.\n<\/p>\n
      According   to   him   he   did   not   record   statement   of   Vidya   in <\/p>\n
      question answer form because his senior had told him to take <\/p>\n
      down the statement as per details which were told by Vidya.\n<\/p>\n
      He stated in the cross-examination that he had not mentioned <\/p>\n
      in the FIR\/Exh.37 that the accused and Vidya were having the <\/p>\n
      love affair. According to him,  he had also not mentioned in the <\/p>\n
      FIR that the accused suspected of Vidya having love relations <\/p>\n
      with other man.  This witness stated that he has not mentioned <\/p>\n
      in   the   FIR   that   the   FIR   was   read   over   to   Vidya   and   she <\/p>\n
      confirmed the correctness of the same, as he was in hurry and <\/p>\n
      therefore forgot to mention all these details.\n<\/p>\n
    20. Aforesaid is the evidence led by the prosecution to prove its <\/p>\n
      case. It is required to be noted that so far as FIR at Exh.37 is <\/p>\n
      concerned,   at   the   relevant   time   deceased   had   put   thumb <\/p>\n
      impression on the same. The same is natural because looking to <\/p>\n
      the   burn   injuries   it   was   not   possible   for   her   to   put   her <\/p>\n
      signature. Dr.Desai had already given certificate below the same <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                       27<\/span><\/p>\n
    wherein Dr.Desai has certified that the patient Vidya Prabh 50\/F <\/p>\n
    was admitted on June 23 at 10.00 am in Ward No.28, and it is a <\/p>\n
    case of 98% superficial to deep thermal burns; that the patient <\/p>\n
    was conscious, well oriented in time, place and person and has <\/p>\n
    given   statement   in   his   presence.     Dr.Narendra   Desai   put   his <\/p>\n
    signature, date as June 23, 2000   and the timing as 11.10 a.m. <\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when <\/p>\n
    the police had taken statement at 10.30 there is delay on the <\/p>\n
    part of Doctor which is given at 11.10 a.m.  We hardly find any <\/p>\n
    substance   in   this   submission.   Though   it   is   stated   that   the <\/p>\n
    Investigating   Officer   recorded   the   statement   at   10.30   am,     it <\/p>\n
    must have taken some time in recording the said statement and <\/p>\n
    even as per the evidence of PW14, the Investigating Officer the <\/p>\n
    Doctor   was   also   busy   in   giving   treatment   to   the   patient,   as <\/p>\n
    naturally the Doctor is required to give priority to the treatment <\/p>\n
    of the patient. The version in the FIR is therefore absolutely <\/p>\n
    natural which the deceased hereself has given, and there is no <\/p>\n
    reason   to   disbelieve   the   evidence   of   the   Doctor.   So   far   as <\/p>\n
    evidence of PW3 is concerned, there is no reason to discard the <\/p>\n
    same. In our view   the evidence of PW3 is most natural and <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                        28<\/span><\/p>\n
      even in a given case, the testimony of chance witness cannot be <\/p>\n
      discarded merely because such witness was present at the spot <\/p>\n
      by chance.  In this connection the learned APP has relied upon <\/p>\n
      the decision  of  Sarvesh  Narain  Shukla  V\/s.Daroga  Singh & <\/p>\n
      Ors., (2007), 13 SCC 360, wherein the Supreme Court has held <\/p>\n
      that where there is adequate explanation given by the witnesses <\/p>\n
      for their presence at the place of occurence by chance, their <\/p>\n
      testimony cannot be discarded simply because they happened to <\/p>\n
      be present by chance.   Considering the evidence of PW3 and <\/p>\n
      PW4 as well as considering the evidence of the sisters of the <\/p>\n
      deceased, it can safely be said  that the prosecution has proved <\/p>\n
      its  case  beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   it   is   the   accused   and <\/p>\n
      accused only who had poured kerosene on the deceased and set <\/p>\n
      her on fire and committed her murder.\n<\/p>\n
    21. It is required to be noted that the deceased had stated about <\/p>\n
      the alleged incident to PW3 at the earliest, and thereafter within <\/p>\n
      a short span of time to the Investigating Officer, and even to <\/p>\n
      PW8   also   at   11.30   am,   and   as   per   the   evidence   of   PW10, <\/p>\n
      DrAshok   Shah,   the   patient   can   remain   conscious   and   give <\/p>\n
      statement for about 2 hours. According to him, the person who <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                        29<\/span><\/p>\n
    is having 95% burn injuries can talk and can be conscious for <\/p>\n
    about two hours after the burns, but after two hours he may <\/p>\n
    not remain in stable mental condition. All the statements given <\/p>\n
    by the witnesses are within a short span of time and there is <\/p>\n
    no   reason   to   disbelieve   the   evidence   of   said   witnesses.   It   is <\/p>\n
    required to be noted that PW3 and PW4 have no animosity with <\/p>\n
    the accused in any manner so as to falsely implicate him in the <\/p>\n
    offence, and therefore, considering the evidence it is clear that <\/p>\n
    the accused has committed the aforesaid act since the deceased <\/p>\n
    had refused to marry him.  It is also required to be noted that <\/p>\n
    immediately after the incident the accused was found to have <\/p>\n
    consumed   poison   and   it   is   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that <\/p>\n
    because of failure of the love affair he did the said act. We are <\/p>\n
    not   in   a   position   to   accept   the   submission   of   the   learned <\/p>\n
    counsel   for   the   accused   that   the   fact   that   accused   tried   to <\/p>\n
    commit suicide cannot be connected with the alleged incident of <\/p>\n
    burning deceased Vidya.   It is also clear that smell of kerosene <\/p>\n
    was found from the clothes of the accused. In that view of the <\/p>\n
    matter, even the motive is also proved by the prosecution and <\/p>\n
    considering the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                          30<\/span><\/p>\n
       that the prosecution has established the case against the accused <\/p>\n
       beyond the reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    22. Mr.Apte, the learned  Counsel   for   the  appellant   accused  relied <\/p>\n
       upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanti <\/p>\n
       Lal V\/s.State of Rajasthan, AIR 2009 SC 2703.  Relying on the <\/p>\n
       said   decision,   it   is   submitted   that   when   credibility   of   dying <\/p>\n
       declaration is doubtful and when no certificate is taken from <\/p>\n
       the Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give <\/p>\n
       statement, and when no endorsement to that effect is made on <\/p>\n
       the   statement,   it   is   to   be   held   that   the   alleged     dying <\/p>\n
       declaration   was   not   genuine.     The   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
       appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
       in the case of Gangotri Singh V\/s.State of U.P., 1993 Supp.(1) <\/p>\n
       SCC   327,  wherein   dying   declaration   was   recorded   by   the <\/p>\n
       Magistrate   shortly   after   the   incident   while   the   deceased   was <\/p>\n
       under treatment in the hospital and where the entry in bed-\n<\/p>\n
       ticket that injured stated that somebody shot at him, it was held <\/p>\n
       that   it   related   to   the   manner   in   which   the   injuries   were <\/p>\n
       received and not much weight could be attached to it nor it <\/p>\n
       can be treated as another dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                          31<\/span><\/p>\n
    23. Mr.Apte,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   accused   relied <\/p>\n
       upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of <\/p>\n
       U.P. V\/s.Shishupal Singh, AIR 1994 SC 129, wherein the dying <\/p>\n
       declaration which was recorded by the Magistrate was neither <\/p>\n
       signed by the deceased nor contained the date and time of its <\/p>\n
       recording   and   where   no   explanation   was   given   that   the <\/p>\n
       deceased was not in a position to sign the dying declaration, <\/p>\n
       and when the case rested on such dying declaration,   it was <\/p>\n
       held that the order of acquittal of the accused in such a case is <\/p>\n
       proper.    However, in the instant case, the case is of excessive <\/p>\n
       burn injuries and the deceased had put thumb impression and <\/p>\n
       had given oral dying declaration to PW8. In the instant case, it <\/p>\n
       is required to be noted that there is no reason to disbelieve the <\/p>\n
       say   of   the   Investigating   Officer   when   the   statement   of   the <\/p>\n
       deceased herself is taken and the Doctor has certified below it <\/p>\n
       that she was in a proper state of mind to give the statement, <\/p>\n
       coupled with the fact that she had also narrated the incident to <\/p>\n
       PW3,   which   in   our   view   can   be   treated   as   verbal   dying <\/p>\n
       declaration to PW3. In fact PW3 and PW4 have witnessed the <\/p>\n
       incident and so they are eye witnesses to the incident also.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                           32<\/span><\/p>\n
    24. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision <\/p>\n
       of the Supreme Court in the case of Banka Naiko and Others <\/p>\n
       V\/s.State of Orissa, AIR 1976 SC 2013, wherein it is held that <\/p>\n
       the   accused   is   entitled   to   benefit   of   doubt   as   the   dying <\/p>\n
       declaration was not proved by reliable evidence.\n<\/p>\n
    25. However,   in     the   instant   case,   there   is   evidence   of   two   eye <\/p>\n
       witnesses, coupled with the fact that the deceased as per the <\/p>\n
       evidence of the Doctor was in a proper state of mind to give <\/p>\n
       statement before the police.   Even PW8 Varsha clearly stated <\/p>\n
       that she was told by the deceased   that she was subjected to <\/p>\n
       pouring of kerosene and setting on fire by the accused.  In our <\/p>\n
       view the evidence on record is sufficient to establish the guilt of <\/p>\n
       the accused and the evidence of PW3 who has given version in <\/p>\n
       a natural manner cannot be discarded. There is nothing to show <\/p>\n
       that    there  was  animosity   with   the   accused   so   as  to   falsely <\/p>\n
       implicate in the offence.\n<\/p>\n
    26. The prosecution has also established the motive of the accused <\/p>\n
       who wanted to marry the deceased, and because of her refusal <\/p>\n
       to marry him, he annoyed, poured kerosene on her, set her on <\/p>\n
       fire   and   thereafter   tried   to   commit   suicide.   Considering   the <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                 33<\/span><\/p>\n
    aforesaid aspects, we do not find any substance in the appeal <\/p>\n
    and there is overwhelming evidence on record, by which, it is <\/p>\n
    proved that the accused has committed the aforesaid offence.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    (R.G.KETKAR, J.)                          (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) \n                       \n                      \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:34:52 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.730 OF 2009 Rasiklal Makhanji Solanki, (Through Jail) R\/o.Dr.Nair Road, Junction of Meghraj Shetty Road & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeghraj Shetty Road & Maratha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 - 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\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-19T22:10:27+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=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-19T22:10:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6831,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-19T22:10:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 - 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\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-19T22:10:27+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":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-19T22:10:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010"},"wordCount":6831,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010","name":"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-19T22:10:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meghraj-shetty-road-maratha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meghraj Shetty Road & Maratha … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 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:\/\/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\/84497","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=84497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}