{"id":90447,"date":"1983-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983"},"modified":"2017-05-13T10:24:21","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T04:54:21","slug":"ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983","title":{"rendered":"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 810, \t\t 1983 SCR (3) 268<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMJI SURJYA & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/05\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR  810\t\t  1983 SCR  (3) 268\n 1983 SCC  (3) 629\t  1983 SCALE  (1)763\n\n\nACT:\n     Supreme  Court   (Enlargement  of\t Criminal  Appellate\nJurisdiction) Act, 1970-5 2-Accused acquitted by trial court\nbut convicted  by High\tCourt, Corroboration  of evidence of\nsole eye  witness-when necessary. Jurisdiction of' appellate\ncourt co-extensive  with that of trial court Appellate court\ncannot totally brush aside appreciation of evidence by Trial\nCourt. Appellate court to give cogent reasons for conviction\nshould be slow in interfering\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants were charged under section 302134 I.P.C.\nfor murdering  the husband  of P.W. 2 when he was Lying on a\ncot inside  a hut  and the  P.W. 2  was sitting outside. The\ntrial court  disbelieved the case of prosecution that P.W. 2\nwas an\teye witness  of the occurrence. The trial court held\nthat the  details of  the incident  given  by  P.W.  2\twere\nimaginary or  improbable and, therefore, unbelievable; there\nwas several  contradictions in\ther evidence which could not\nbe  accepted  without  any  further  corroboration  and\t the\nevidence of certain other prosecution witnesses could not be\nsafely\trelied\t an  as\t  furnishing  corroboration  to\t the\nstatement of  P.W.  2  in  view\t of  the  several  instances\nnarrated in  its judgment.  The evidence  of the  doctor who\nconducted postmortem examination of the body of the deceased\nwas that  the death  of the  deceased could  not have  taken\nplace soon  after the  dinner as  he did  not find  any food\nparticles  in\tthe  stomach  and  small-intestines  of\t the\ndeceased The  trial court observed that the evidence of P.W.\n2 that\tshe had\t served food  for the deceased at about 8.30\nP.M. could  not be accepted as probable as the fatal assault\nhad taken  place at about 9 P.M. There was a delay of nearly\n24 hours  in giving  the information to the police out post.\nThe evidence  for motive  also was  found to be discrepant .\nAccordingly the trial court acquitted the appellants.\n     On appeal\tthe High  Court\t reversed  the\tjudgment  of\nacquittal, convicted  the appellants  and sentenced  them to\nundergo rigorous  imprisonment\tfor  life.  The\t High  Court\nseverely criticised  the evidence  of the  doctor  observing\nthat, \"our  impression is  that he  hardly knows  what he Is\ntalking about  and what is extraordinary is that the less he\nknows the more assertive he is, No reliance what so ever can\nbe placed  on such  evidence and  no conclusion can be drawn\neither adverse\tor in  favour of  the prosecution  from\t the\nopinion\t evidence   of\tsuch   a  poorly  qualified  medical\nwitness\".\n     Allowing the appeal,\n269\n^\n     HELD: There is no doubt that even where there is only a\nsole eye  witness of  a crime,\ta conviction may be recorded\nagainst the  accused concerned\tA provided  the Court  which\nhears such  witness regards  him as honest and truthful. But\nprudence requires  that some  corroboration should be sought\nfrom the  other\t prosecution  evidence\tin  support  of\t the\ntestimony of-a\tsolitary  witness  particularly\t where\tsuch\nwitness also  happens to  be closely related to the deceased\nand the\t accused are  those against whom some motive or ill-\nwill is suggested. [276 G-H]\n     In the  instant case a careful analysis of the evidence\nrelating to  the inordinate  delay involved in the giving of\nthe first  information to  the police and the other inherent\ninconsistencies in  the evidence  of the  sole\teye  witness\nshows that  her evidence  cannot be considered as sufficient\nto find\t the accused  guilty. The first information (Exh. P.\n10)  itself   appears  to   be\tone   prepared\tafter\tsome\ndeliberation. The  motive suggested  by the prosecution does\nnot appear  to be  strong enough  for  the  accused  joining\ntogether to commit the murder of the deceased [276 H, 277 A,\n275 C]\n     While there  is no\t doubt that  the jurisdiction  of an\nappellate court is coextensive with that of the trial court,\nin the\tcase of an appeal against a judgment of acquittal it\ncannot totally\tbrush aside the appreciation of the evidence\nby the\ttrial court. The reasons for reversing a judgment of\nacquittal D should be cogent and if two views are reasonably\npossible, the  appellate court should be slow in interfering\nwith the judgment of the trial court, even if it is possible\nfor it to take a different view after a process of laborious\nreasoning. [277 G-H, 278 A]\n     In the instant case the High Court has not bestowed due\ncare or, the principles governing its jurisdiction. There is\nno proper  discussion ill  the judgment\t of the\t High  Court\nabout the various versions in the prosecution evidence about\nthe giving  of the  first information to the police in their\ntrue perspective.  The High  Court has\tover-simplified this\nissue and  has observed.  \"In this case, bearing in mind the\nplace where  the incident  occurred, we find no unreasonable\ndelay in  reporting the\t incident to  the police out-post at\nMolgi and  subsequently\t in  giving  the  complaint  at\t the\nDhadgaon Police\t Station\". It may be noted that the distance\nbetween Molgi  and the\tvillage of  the deceased  was hardly\nthree miles  but the  'khabar' reached\tthe Molgi police out\npost, according to the prosecution nearly 24 hours after the\nincident. The reason  given  by\t the  prosecution  for\tthis\ninordinate delay,  that P.W.  2 did not want the information\nto be  lodged with  the police\tuntil the arrival of her son\nP.W.  I,  is  hardly  convincing  since\t there\tare  several\ndifferent versions about the lodging of the information with\nthe police  out post  and the  earlier versions of the crime\nsaid to\t have been  given by  P.W. 2  which were  in writing\nappear to have been suppressed. This important aspect of the\ncase has  been overlooked  by the  High Court.\tIt would  be\nunsafe to  act upon  the evidence  of P.W. 2 and convict the\nappellants. [277 G, 278 A-C, 274 F-G, 279 A]\n     The comment  by the  High Court  on the evidence of the\ndoctor appears\tto be  more severe  than what it should have\nbeen particularly  when his  opinion that  'it was  possible\nthat the death in this particular case was instantaneous, is\nnot seriously challenged. [278 G-Hl\n270\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n429 of 1980
\n     From the  Judgment and  order dated  the 21st December,
\n1979 of\t the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 467
\nof 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     M.N. Sharma for the Appellants. (Amicus Curiae)
\n     J. S. Akartey and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH J.  This Criminal  Appeal under section 2
\nof the\tSupreme Court  (Enlargement  of\t Criminal  Appellate
\nJurisdiction) Act, 1970 (Act No. 28 of 1970) is filed by two
\nappellants  Ramji  Surjya  Padvi  and  Bhikji  Surjya  Padvi
\naccused Nos. 2 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1974 on the
\nfile of\t the Additional\t Sessions Judge,  Dhulia against the
\njudgment of  the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
\n467 of\t1975 by\t which it reversed the judgment of acquittal
\npassed by  the Sessions\t Court on  a  charge  under  section
\n302\/34 of  the Indian Penal Code and imposed the sentence of
\nrigorous imprisonment for life on each of them after holding
\nthem guilty of the charge under section 302\/34 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts of the case are these: Damji (accused No. 1),
\nRamji (accused\tNo. 2)\tand Bhikji  (accused No.  4) are the
\nsons of\t Surjya Tulya  Padvi (accused No. 3). Accused Nos. I
\nto 4  are residents  of a  village  called  Veri  in  taluka
\nAkkalkuwa. The\tsaid village  was by  the side\tof  a  river
\ncalled Mothi  Nadi. In the month of March, 1974, one Prabhat
\nSingh (the  deceased) a\t resident of  Mojapada\twhich  is  a
\nhamlet of  Bhagdari village  within the\t limits of  Dhadgaon
\npolice station had grown watermelons on a portion of the bed
\nof the Mothi Nadi river near the village, Veri. The distance
\nbetween the  place where  watermelons had  been grown by the
\ndeceased and his village was about two miles. It is the case
\nof the prosecution that during the last week of March, 1974,
\nthe deceased  Prabhat Singh and his wife, Surjabhai (P.W. 2)
\nwere staying  in a  hut which  they had constructed near the
\nplace where  they had  grown watermelons  in order  to\tkeep
\nwatch over the watermelon crop. They used to cook their food
\nin the\thut. On\t March 26,  1974 at  about  9.00  P.M.\twhen
\nPrabhat Singh  was Lying  on a\tcot inside the hut, Surjabai
\nwas sitting outside near an agiti in which she had kept fire
\nand was warming
\n271<\/span>
\nherself. It  is the  case of  the prosecution  that at\tthat
\ntime, the  four accused persons referred to above came there
\nand when  they were  questioned by  Surjabai, they told that
\nthey had  come to smoke tobacco. At that time accused No. 2,
\nRamji was  armed with  an axe. The accused did not, however,
\nstay there  for the  purpose of smoking but suddenly entered
\nthe hut\t where accused\tNos. 1,\t 3 and\t4, Damji, Surjya and
\nBhikji caught  hold of\tPrabhat Singh and Ramji (accused No.\n<\/p>\n
2) gave\t a number of blows with an axe on the head, face and
\nneck of\t Prabhat Singh.\t Thereafter they  ran away. Surjabai
\nout of\tfear went  near a  big stone in a nearby hillock and
\nconcealed herself  behind it. She continued it sit there for
\nsome time  and on  returning to\t the scene of occurrence she
\nfound that  her husband had died. Thereafter she went to her
\nvillage in  the early  hours of\t March 27, 1974 and narrated
\nthe incident  to her  daughter-in-law Bharatibai (P.W. 3) in
\nthe presence of two of her servants Bapu and Arshya who have
\nnot been  examined in  the case.  It is stated that she sent
\nanother servant of her’s Bamanya (P.W. 8) to go to a village
\ncalled Nala-gavi  where her  son, Ratan\t Singh (P.W.  1) had
\ngone on\t the previous  day to fetch him. She thereafter sent
\nfor Gumba  (P.W. 5) who was formerly the Police Patil of her
\nvillage and  narrated before  him the  incident in which her
\nhusband had been killed. It is stated that she mentioned the
\nnames of  the four  accused as\tthe  assailants\t to  P.W.  3
\nBharatibai as  well as\tto Gumba  (P.W. 5).  It\t is  further
\nstated\tthat   Surjabai,  Gumba,   Bharatibai  and  the\t two
\nservants, Bapu\tand Arshya and some others went to the place
\nwhere the  dead body  of Prabhat  Singh was lying. They also
\nsent for  Detka (P.W.  9) who  was the\tPolice Patil at that
\ntime. Ratan Singh, according to the prosecution, reached the
\nplace at  about 5.00 P.M. On being informed by Bamanya (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
8) about  the incident,\t Surjabai narrated  the whole  story
\nagain before Ratan Singh (P.W. 1). Thereafter P.W. 1 went to
\nthe  village  Molgi  where  there  was\ta  police  out\tpost
\nalongwith Detka\t (P.W. 9)  and orally  mentioned to the Head
\nConstable by  name Keval Bedse (P.W. 13) about the incident.
\nP.W. 13\t prepared the  out post\t ‘khabar’ (Exh.\t 36) in\t the
\nprescribed form\t and sent  P.W. 1  Ratan Singh alongwith the
\nout post  khabar to  the Police Station at Dhadgaon. P.W. 13
\nthereafter left\t for the  scene of  occurrence to keep watch
\nover the  dead body.  Ratan Singh  is stated to have hired a
\njeep and  gone to  Dhadgaon and\t reached that place at about
\n2.15 A.M.  On March  28, 1974.\tThere he  met the police Sub
\nInspector at  the Police  Station and made a statement (Exh.\n<\/p>\n
10) before  him which  was recorded by him In that statement
\nhe narrated  what he had heard from his mother at about 5.00
\nP.M. on
\n272<\/span>
\nMarch 27,  1974. In  that statement,  the names\t of the four
\naccused are  found as  the assailants. Thereafter the police
\nSub Inspector  came to\tthe spot on the morning of March 28,
\n1974 and  carried on  further investigation. He arrested the
\naccused Nos. I to 3 on the evening of March 28, 1974 accused
\nNo.  4\t on  the   next\t day   and  after   completing\t the
\ninvestigation, he filed the charge sheet against them for an
\noffence punishable  under section 302\/34 of the Indian Penal
\nCode.  The   learned  Sessions\tJudge  who  tried  the\tcase
\ndisbelieved the case of the prosecution that Surjabai was an
\neye witness  of the  occurrence and  acquitted the  accused.
\nAgainst the said judgment of acquittal, the State Government
\npreferred an  appeal before  the High Court. It would appear
\nthat during the pendency of the appeal, accuced No. 1, Damji
\nand accused  No. 3,  Surjya had\t died. This fact perhaps was
\nnot brought to the notice of the High Court. Before the High
\nCourt, the accused were represented by an amicus curiae. The
\nHigh Court set aside the judgment of acquittal and convicted
\nall the\t accused including  accused No. 1 and accused No. 3,
\nwho had\t died earlier,\tunder section  302\/34 of  the Indian
\nPenal Code  and imposed\t on each  of them  the\tsentence  of
\nimprisonment for  life. Against\t the judgment  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt, accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 preferred this appeal
\nbefore this Court. When the appeal came up for admission, by
\nan order  made by  this Court on August 18, 1980, the appeal
\nof Bhikji  (accused No.\t 4) was\t dismissed.  The  notice  of
\nappeal was  issued only\t in so\tfar as Ramji (accused No. 2)
\nwas concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri M.  N. Sharma\t who has  appeared in  this case  as
\namicus curiae  has raised among others. two points before us
\n(1) that the case of the prosecution was a concocted one and
\n(2) that  in any event since it was not possible to say that
\ntwo opinions  were not\tpossible  about\t the  guilt  of\t the
\naccused, it  was not  open to  the High Court to reverse the
\njudgment of acquittal of the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  first deal  with the  manner in\twhich  first
\ninformation was given to the police in this case. It is true
\nthat in\t the statement\t(Exh. 10)  of Ratan  Singh (P.W.  1)
\nwhich is  stated to have been recorded at 2.15 A.M. On March
\n28, 1974 at the Dhadgaon Police Station we find the names of
\nall the four accused and a brief description of the incident
\nwhich is  alleged to have been narrated by Surjabai (P.W. 2)
\nat about  5.00 P.M.  On March  27, 1974\t before Ratan  Singh
\n(P.W. 1). What value should be attached to the contents
\n273<\/span>
\nof this\t document depends  on  the  evidence  in  the  case.
\nAccording to  the prosecution,\tthe incident  took place  at
\nabout 9\t P.M. On March 26, 1974. Surjabai (P.W. 2) is stated
\nto be  the sole\t witness of the crime. She is stated to have
\ndisclosed all  the particulars\trelating to  the incident on
\nthe morning  of March  27, 1974\t to Bharatibai\t(P.W. 3) and
\nsome others  as stated\tabove. Surjabai\t has stated  in\t the
\ncourse of  her deposition that she had told the Police Patil
\nthat she  wanted a  complaint to  be lodged,  thereafter the
\nPolice Patil  wrote something  and that writing was taken by
\nRatan Singh  (P.W. 1) to Molgi where the police out post was
\nsituated. She  has also\t stated that  she had instructed the
\nPolice Patil  and others  that nobody  should go  to lodge a
\ncomplaint till the arrival of her son, Ratan Singh (P.W. 1).
\nThe writing  referred to above which according to the events
\ndisclosed in  the prosecution  case is\tthe  first  document
\ncontaining the gist of the version of Surjabai regarding the
\nincident. That\tdocument is  not forthcoming  in  the  case.
\nBharatibai. (P.W.  3) has  a different version to give about
\nthe lodging  of the  complaint. She has stated in her cross-
\nexamination: “My  mother-in-law\t Surjabai  had\ttold  Gumba,
\nPolice Patil  that he  could lodge complaint of murder. This
\nwas stated  to him  at about  breakfast time in the morning.
\nImmediately thereafter\tPolice Patil Gumba had gone to lodge
\na complaint.  Van Singh\t Sarpanch and  Tap  Singh  had\tgone
\nalongwith Police  Patil to lodge complaint. They returned at
\nabout  12  Noon\t after\tfiling\tcomplaint  at  Molgi”.\tThis
\ncomplaint cannot  be the  same which  is referred to earlier
\nbecause the  earlier complaint\taccording to P.W. 2 Surjabai
\nwas the\t one which  was taken  by Ratan\t Singh (P.W.  1)  to
\nMolgi. The  complaint referred\tto by P.W. 3 Bharatibai is a
\ncomplaint which\t was prepared  at about noon by Police Patil
\nGumba (P.W.  5) and  lodged by\thim at\tMolgi at about 12.00
\nnoon long  before the arrival of Ratan Singh at the scene of
\noccurrence. This  complaint is\talso not  forthcoming. Gumba
\n(P.W, 5)  who is  a former Police Patil denies that Surjabai
\n(P.W. 2)  had told  him to  go and lodge a complaint. He has
\nstated that  he had received information about the murder in
\nthe morning,  he did  not go  to lodge\ta complaint as Detka
\n(P.W. 9)  was  the  Police  Patil  and\tthat  when  Surjabai
\nnarrated before\t Police Patil  Detka the  particulars of the
\nincident, he  asked Police  Patil Detka\t (P. W.\t 9). that he
\nshould go  to lodge  a complaint. This happened according to
\nhim at\tabout 2\t P.M. On  March 27,  1974. P.W. 9 Detka says
\nthat he\t went to  the place of occurrence at about 1.30 P.M.
\nOn March  27, 1974  where the  dead body  was Lying  and  he
\nstayed there awaiting the arrival of
\n274<\/span>
\nRatan Singh (P.W. 1) who reached that place by 5.00 P.M. and
\nthereafter he  and Ratan Singh went to Molgi police out post
\nwhere the  head constable prepared the occurrence report. He
\nsays that  he reached  Molgi at\t about sun-set\ttime but the
\nkhabar report.\t(Exh. 36)  prepared by the head constable at
\nMolgi shows  that the  khabar’ was  given to him at 21 hours
\ni.e. 9.00 P.M. On March 27, 1974.   Ratan Singh (P.W. 1) who
\nis stated  to have  given that\tkhabar says  that he reached
\nMolgi at  about 8.00  or 8.30  P.M. and gave the information
\ncontained in the khabar report. The first information stated
\nto have been recorded by the police under section 154 of the
\nCriminal Procedure  Code is  stated to be the one taken down
\nat the\tPolice Station at Dhadgaon (Exh. 10) at 2.15 A.M. On
\nMarch 28, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     A close  examination of  the above\t evidence shows that
\naccording to Surjabai (P.W. 2) there was a document prepared
\nby Gumba  (P.w.\t 5)  in\t the  morning  of  March  27,  1974.
\ncontaining the\tinformation given  by her which was later on
\ntaken by  Ratan Singh (P.W. 1). Then according to Bharatibai
\n(P.W. 3) there was a document which was prepared by Gumba at
\nabout 12.00  Noon which\t he took to Molgi and lodged it with
\nthe Molgi  police out post. According to P.W. 9 Police Patil
\nDetka, the  information was  given at the police out post at
\nabout sun-set time i.e. at about 6.30 P.M. The khabar report
\nitself shows  that it was received at 9.00 P.M. On March 27,
\n1974 and  the first  information  is  stated  to  have\tbeen
\nrecorded at  2.15 A.M.\tOn March  28, 1974. In this case the
\nprosecution have  attempted in the course of the evidence to
\nexplain away  the delay\t in giving  the information  to\t the
\npolice out  post which\twas nearly 24 hours from the time at
\nwhich the  occurrence is  stated  to  have  taken  place  by
\nstating that Surjabai (P W. 2) did not want such information
\nto be  lodged with  the police\tuntil the  arrival of  Ratan
\nSingh which,  according to  the prosecution, took place at 5
\nP.M. On\t March 27,  1974. The  attempt of the prosecution to
\nexplain away  the delay has failed in the instant case since
\nwe have\t several different versions about the lodging of the
\ninformation  with  the\tpolice\tout  post  and\tthe  earlier
\nversions of  the crime\tsaid to\t have been given by Surjabai
\nwhich were in writing appear to have been suppressed in this
\ncase.  This   extraordinary.  delay   in  giving  the  first
\ninformation to\tthe police in the present case which has not
\nbeen properly explained cannot but be viewed with suspician,
\n275<\/span>
\n     The motive\t for the crime is stated to be that the plot
\non which  the deceased\thad grown watermelons was being used
\nby accused  No. 2  Ramji some  years before  the incident to
\ngrow onions  and that there was a quarrel about 8 or 10 days
\nprior to  the incident between accused No. 2 and Ratan Singh
\n(P.W. 1). The land in question being a part of the river bed
\ndid not\t belong to  accused No. 2 and he was not cultivating
\nthere for  about 2  or 3 years before the incident. The land
\nwas probably  getting submerged during rainy season. Accused
\nNo. 2  could not,  therefore,  be  considered  as  being  in
\npossession  of\t that  plot   when  the\t deceased  commenced
\ncultivation. There  is also no evidence showing that accused
\nNo. 2  had raised  any objection  when watermelon seeds were
\nactually planted. In the circumstances, the motive suggested
\ndoes not  appear to  be strong\tenough for  the four accused
\njoining together to commit the murder of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     While there  could be  no\tdoubt  about  the  homicidal
\ncharacter of the death of the deceased, the learned Sessions
\nJudge who  heard the evidence of Surjabai (P.W. 2) held that
\nthe details  of the  incident given by her were imaginary or
\nimprobable  and,   therefore,  unbelievable.   Some  of\t the
\ninherent contradictions\t in her\t evidence are  these: In her
\nevidence she has stated that she was sitting outside the hut
\nnear a\tplace where  she had kept fire (agiti) at about 9.00
\nP.M. and  she saw  from there all that took place inside the
\nhut when  her husband  was assaulted by the accused. She has
\neven given  the role  played by each of them. She has stated
\nthat while  accused Nos.  1, 3\tand  4\theld  the  deceased,
\naccused No.  2 assaulted  him repeatedly with the axe he had
\nbrought. The  sketch of\t the scene of occurrence (Exh. P. 4)
\nshows that  the fire  place was\t to the South of the hut but
\nthe hut had an opening towards the East only. She could not,
\ntherefore, have seen the actual assualt from the place where
\nshe is\tstated to be sitting. It is also noteworthy that the
\nonly source  of light  at the  time of\tthe incident was the
\nfire said  to have  been ignited by Surjabai (P.W. 2). It is
\ndifficult to  believe that  she could in that light identify
\nthe accused,  the arms\tthey were  carrying and\t the clothes
\nthey were wearing about which she has tried to give detailed
\ndescription in\ther evidence.  Her answer  that she  had put
\nmore fuel  in order  to have  more light  so that  she could
\nidentify the  accused properly appears to be bit artificial.
\nShe, however, has admitted that it had become dark even when
\nthey were  taking food\tearlier. It is also strange that she
\ndid not\t try to\t resist the  attack on\ther husband.  It  is
\nfurther seen that in Exh. 10, the first information,
\n276<\/span>
\nit is  stated that she had told Ratan Singh (P.W. 1) that at
\nthe time  of the  incident she\twas chit-chatting  with\t her
\nhusband but  in her  deposition\t she  has  stated  that\t the
\ndeceased had  fallen asleep at the time of the incident. The
\ndoctor (P.W.  6) has  stated that the cause of the death was
\ndue to\tsevere bleeding\t due to\t the cutting  of  the  Light
\ncarotid artery,\t It is\talso in evidence that the blood of .
\nthe deceased  had been\tsplashed all-round, but it is stated
\nby Surjabai  (P.W. 2)  that no\teven a single stain of blood
\nwas found  on her  clothes. Ordinarily on such an occasion a
\nwife whose husband is murdered would come into close contact
\nwith the  body of  her husband\tand her clothes would become
\nblood stained.\tIn the\tinstant case  there was\t no means of
\navoiding such  stains also  as there  was darkness all-round
\nwhere the incident is stated to have taken place. The
\nabsence of  blood stains on the clothes of Surjabai (P.W. 2)
\nsuggests that  she could- not have been present at the scene
\nat the time of occurrence. The statement found in Exh. P. 10
\nand also  in her deposition that she was hiding on a hillock
\nduring that  night  out\t of  fear  is  contradicted  by\t the
\nevidence of  Bharatibai (P.W.  3) that Surjabai (P.W. 2) had
\ntold her  that she  was\t in  the  hut  throughout  till\t she
\nreturned home.\tWe may also not here that according to Ratan
\nSingh (P.W.  1) the  son of  the deceased  they had  engaged
\nabout seven  ‘annual’ servants\tto work\t on their fields and
\none of\tthem was  Bamanya (P.W. 8) who had gone to fetch him
\nfrom Nalagavi  village where  he had gone to see his son who
\nwas studying in Ashram School. None of the servants had been
\nasked to  stay at  the hut  alongwith the  deceased but only
\nSurjabai (P.W.\t2) is  stated to  be present at the scene of
\noccurrence. The\t distance between  the village\tof  Surjabai
\n(P.W. 2)  and the  scene of occurrence was about 1 1\/2 miles
\naccording to  the evidence  of Ratan Singh (P.W. 1). If that
\nwas so,\t it is\tnot known  why Surjabai\t did not  run to the
\nvillage immediately  after the\tincident took place, instead
\nof running  towards the hillock and returning to the village
\nnext morning.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  no doubt that even where there is only a sole
\neye witness of a crime, a conviction may be recorded against
\nthe accused  concerned provided\t the Court  which hears such
\nwitness regards\t him as\t honest and  truthful. But  prudence
\nrequires that  some corroboration  should be sought from the
\nother prosecution  evidence in support of the testimony of a
\nsolitary  witness   particularly  where\t such  witness\talso
\nhappens to  be closely\trelated\t to  the  deceased  and\t the
\naccused are  those against  whom some  motive or  illwill is
\nsuggested. Now in the instant case a careful analysis of the
\nevidence relating to the
\n277<\/span>
\ninordinate  delay  involved  in\t the  giving  of  the  first
\ninformation  to\t  the  police\tand   the   other   inherent
\ninconsistencies in  the evidence  of the sole eye witness i.
\ne. Surjabai  (P. W.2)  shows that  her\tevidence  cannot  be
\nconsidered as  sufficient to  find the\taccused\t guity.\t The
\nfirst information  (Exh. P.  10) itself\t appears to  be\t one
\nprepared after\tsome deliberation.  The role  attributed  to
\nGumba (P.W.5)  the former  Police Patil\t in the\t prosecution
\nevidence compels  the Court  to look  for corroboration from
\nthe other prosecution evidence before accepting the evidence
\nof Surjabai (P.W. 2).\n<\/p>\n
     The accused  Nos. 1  to 3\twere arrested  on March\t 28,
\n1974. The axe and clothes recovered on March 28, 1974 itself
\non the\tbasis of  the statement\t of accused  No.  2  and  of
\naccused No. 3 had no blood stains according to the report of
\nthe Assisstant\tChemical Analyser  to Government  (Exh. 39).
\nThe house of accused No. 1 was not searched on that day even
\nthough there  was no  impediment for doing so. His house was
\nsearched on  the next  day when a dhoti said to contain some
\nblood stain was found with him. The delay in the recovery of
\nthis dhoti  was considered  by the learned Sessions Judge as
\naffecting  the\tevidentiary  value  of\tthe  said  recovery.
\nSimilarly the  blood stains  said to  be on  a banian seized
\nfrom the  person of  accused No.  4 when  he was arrested on
\nMarch 29,  1974 was  considered by the Sessions Judge as not
\npossessing any\tcorroborative value  again on account of the
\ninterval between  the time  of occurrence  and the  time  of
\nrecovery. The  learned Sessions Judge felt that the evidence
\nof Surjabai  could  not\t be  accepted  without\tany  further
\ncorroboration. The learned Sessions Judge also felt that the
\nevidence of  the other\tprosecution witnesses  such as Gumba
\n(P.W. 5), Police Patil Detka (P.W.9) and Ratan Singh (P.W.1)
\ncould not be safely relied on as furnishing corroboration to
\nthe statement  of Surjabai  (P.W.2) in\tview of\t the several
\ncircumstances narrated\tin his\tjudgment.  The\tevidence  of
\nmotive also  was found\tto  be\tdiscrepant  by\tthe  learned
\nSessions Judge. According y he acquitted all the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court which  was hearing\t an appeal against a
\njudgment of  acquittal has  not bestowed  due  care  on\t the
\nprinciples governing  its jurisdiction.\t While there  is  no
\ndoubt  that  the  jurisdiction\tof  an\tappellate  court  is
\ncoextensive with  that of  the trial court in the case of an
\nappeal against\ta judgment  of acquittal  it cannot  totally
\nbrush aside  the appreciation  of the  evidence by the trial
\ncourt, The  reasons for\t reversing a  judgment of  acquittal
\nshould be  cogent and  if two views are reasonably possible,
\nthe appellate court should be
\n278<\/span>
\nslow in\t interfering with  the judgment\t of the trial court,
\neven if it is possible for it to take a different view after
\na process  of laborious\t reasoning. We\tdo not find a proper
\ndiscussion in  the judgment  of the  High  Court  about\t the
\nvarious versions  in  the  prosecution\tevidence  about\t the
\ngiving of the first information to the police, which we have
\npointed out above, in their true perspective. The High Court
\nhas over-simplified  this issue\t and has  observed: “In this
\ncase, bearing in mind the place where the incident occurred,
\nwe find\t no unreasonable  delay in reporting the incident to
\nthe police  out post at Molgi and subsequently in giving the
\ncomplaint at  the Dhadgaon  Police Station”. It may be noted
\nthat the  distance between  Molgi and  the  village  of\t the
\ndeceased was hardly three miles but the ‘khabar’ reached the
\nMolgi police  out post, according to the prosecution, nearly
\n24 hours  after\t the  incident.\t The  reason  given  by\t the
\nprosecution for\t this inordinate delay is hardly convincing.
\nThis important aspect of the case has been overlooked by the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  one other circumstance to which reference may
\nbe made\t here. The doctor (P.W.6) who had conducted the post
\nmortem examinat;on of the body of the deceased gave evidence
\nstating that  the death of the deceased could not have taken
\nplace soon  after the  dinner as  he did  not find  any food
\nparticles in  the stomach  or the  small intestines  of\t the
\ndeceased. He  opined that  by the  time of  the death of the
\ndeceased at  least four\t hours must  have passed  after\t his
\ntaking food.  There being  nothing highly  incongruous about
\nthis statement,\t the learned  Sessions Judge had observed in
\nhis judgment that the evidence of Surjabai (P.W. 2) that she
\nhad served  food for  the deceased  at about 8.30 P.M. could
\nnot be\taccepted as  probable as the fatal assault had taken
\nplace at about 9.00 P.M. But the  High\tCourt  has  severely
\ncriticised the\tevidence of this doctor observing that: “our
\nimpression is  that he hardiy knows what he is talking about
\nand what is extraordinary is that the less he knows the more
\nassertive he  is. No  reliance what so ever can be placed on
\nsuch evidence  and no conclusion can be drawn either adverse
\nor in favour of the prosecution from the opinion evidence of
\nsuch a\tpoorly qualified  medical witness”.  This comment by
\nthe High  Court on  the evidence of the doctor appears to be
\nmore severe  than what it should have been particularly when
\nhis opinion  that ‘it  was possible  that the  death in this
\nparticular  case   was\tinstantaneous’\t is  not   seriously
\nchallenged. In the circumstances of this case, the scope for
\nexaggeration  on  the  part  of\t the  prosecution  witnesses
\ninvolving innocent  persons cannot  also be ruled out. As we
\nhave pointed out earlier, the High Court has missed some
\n279<\/span>
\nimportant discrepancies\t in the prosecution case. Bearing in
\nmind the  well-settled principles  governing a\tcase of this
\nnature we  feel that  it would\tbe unsafe  to act  upon\t the
\nevidence of Surjabai (P.W.2) and convict the accused. In the
\ncircumstances, the  High Court was in error in upsetting the
\nverdict of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We,
\ntherefore, hold\t that  the  appeal  of\tRamji  Surjya  Padvi
\naccused No. 2 (appellant No. 1) should be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Having reached  the above conclusion, we feel that ends
\nof justice  require that we should suo motu recall the order
\ndismissing the\tappeal of  Bhikji Surjya Padvi accused No. 4
\n(appellant No.\t2) in  this appeal  and acquit\thim also. We
\naccordingly review  the order  dated August 18, 1980 of this
\nCourt dismissing  his appeal  and restore  his appeal to the
\nfile. It  may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for
\nthe State  fairly conceded that if the appeal of accused No.
\n2 is to be allowed, accused No. 4 should also be released.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result we\tallow this  appeal,  set  aside\t the
\nconviction of accused Nos. 2 and 4 (appellants Nos. 1 and 2)
\nRamjl Surijya  Padvi and  Bhikji Surjya\t Padvi under section
\n302\/34 of  the\tIndian\tPenal  Code  and  the  sentences  of
\nimprisonment for  life imposed on them by the High Court and
\nrestore the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
\nAccused No. 2 and accused No. 4, the appellants herein shall
\nbe released forthwith
\nH.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
280<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 810, 1983 SCR (3) 268 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: RAMJI SURJYA & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/05\/1983 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) ERADI, V. […]<\/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-90447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 - 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\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-13T04:54:21+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T04:54:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\"},\"wordCount\":4384,\"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\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\",\"name\":\"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T04:54:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 - 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\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-13T04:54:21+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983","datePublished":"1983-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T04:54:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983"},"wordCount":4384,"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\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983","name":"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T04:54:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramji-surjya-another-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-may-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramji Surjya & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 1983"}]},{"@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\/90447","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=90447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}