{"id":97371,"date":"1995-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995"},"modified":"2016-08-23T09:53:07","modified_gmt":"2016-08-23T04:23:07","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995<\/div>\n
Bench: N.P. Singh, B.L. Hansaria<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7564 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKANCHANMALA VIJASINCi SHIRKE AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nN.P. SINGH & B.L. HANSARIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 1<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and others
\nagainst the judgment of the High Court holding that the appellant Stale
\nshall be vicariously liable for payment of compensation to the heirs of the
\ndeceased, who was the victim of the accident.\n<\/p>\n
On 31.3.1980 at about 10.00 P.M. an accident took place opposite S.T.
\nDivisional .office. Ratnagiri in which one Vijay Singh died. At that time
\nthe said Vijay Singh was driving the scooter and the jeep which belonged to
\nthe State Government dashed against the scooter because of which the victim
\nsustained serious injuries and he ultimately succumbed to those injuries in
\nthe hospital. The appellant No. 3 was the driver of the said jeep, but at
\nthe time of accident Respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as
\nrespondent’) who was then a clerk in Engineering Fishing Project Division,
\nRatnagiri, was driving the jeep.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their claim before the Motor vehicles
\nTribunal, claiming Rs. 4,00,000 as the compensation for the death of Vijay
\nSingh. it was alleged that respondent was under the influence of liquor and
\nwas driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the
\naccident and death of Vijay Singh. It was also alleged that the said
\nrespondent was driving the jeep with the knowledge and consent of the
\nappellant No. 3, the driver of the jeep, as such the appellants and
\nrespondent were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the
\naccident. Vijay Singh, the deceased was then aged about 35 years and was
\nearning Rs. 1400 to Rs. 2000 per month.\n<\/p>\n
In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, it was admitted
\nthat respondent was driving the jeep although he had no licence to drive
\nthe same. It was also admitted that he was under the influence of liquor.
\nHowever, it was pleaded on behalf of the appellants that said respondent
\nhad snatched the keys of the jeep from the driver, appellant No. 3, and
\nstarted driving the jeep from the office premises. It was asserted that in
\nthat background the appellants including the State could not be held to be
\nvicariously liable for the compensation to be paid to the claimants.
\nRespondent filed a separate written statement and denied that he was
\ndriving the vehicle at the time of the accident and claimed that he was
\nsitting by the side of the driver, appellant No. 3, who was driving the
\njeep.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal on materials on record came to the conclusion that it was
\nrespondent who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he caused
\nthe accident because of his rash and negligent driving. It was also held
\nthat he was having no licence to drive the jeep in question. But the
\nTribunal accepted the case of the appellants that said respondent had
\nsnatched the keys of the jeep from the driver and was driving the vehicle
\nUnauthorisedly. In this background only respondent could be held to be
\nliable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal directed
\nrespondent to pay Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that it was the
\nrespondent who was driving the jeep at the time of accident. Alter
\nreferring several materials on records including the First Information
\nReport which was lodged after the accident, the High Court came to the
\nconclusion that the case put forward on behalf of the appellants that
\nrespondent had snatched the keys forcibly from the driver was not correct.
\nThe High Court pointed out that the pleadings and evidence on record
\nclearly indicate that it was the year ending day, i.e. 31.3.1980 and the
\nclerks and officers were required to work during night time. This was at
\nthe instance of appellant No. 2, who was the incharge of the office. The
\nevidence further disclosed that after normal working hours of the office,
\nthe employees had gone to their homes and were required to come back after
\ntaking dinner. The jeep was used for bringing the employees to the office.
\nThe High Court said that on the materials on record it was not possible to
\nconclude that respondent had taken the jeep for his own private purpose, on
\nthe other hand, it had been established that the jeep was on official duty
\nalthough being driven by respondent, who had taken the charge of the
\nvehicle under the authority of the driver of the vehicle. The High Court
\npointed out from the records including the medical examination of the
\ndriver that he had consumed liquor on that day and because of that he
\npermitted respondent to drive the vehicle that night. In this background,
\nthe Slate has to be held to be vicariously liable for the accident.
\nThereafter the High Court directed payment of Rs.2,06.000 as the
\ncompensation along with 12% interest per annum payable from the date of the
\napplication till the date of deposit\/realisation. The Stale Government, the
\ndriver and respondent were jointly and severally held liable to pay the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants took a stand that in the
\nfacts and circumstances of the present case, the State could not be held to
\nbe vicariously liable to pay the compensation for the acts of respondent
\nwho was just a clerk under the State Government and was neither authorised
\nnor required to drive the jeep in question. The jeep had been put in
\ncustody of the driver who alone was entitled to drive the same. As
\nrespondent had forcibly snatched the keys from the driver and had caused
\nthe accident, the said respondent only should have been held to be liable
\nfor his act; his act could not bind the Stale because it could not be held
\nthat he was driving the jeep in the course of his employment so as to
\nsaddle the liability to pay compensation on the State Government, As a
\nfirst impression, the argument looks attractive, but on proper analysis and
\nevaluation, according to us, it cannot be accepted. As already mentioned
\nabove, the High Court has examined the materials on record for purpose of
\nrecording the finding that the jeep was on official duty, to bring the
\nemployees of the State Government to the office from their residences after
\nthey had their dinner. Respondent was a clerk in the said office and was
\nrequired to be present in the office that night. The High Court has
\nrejected the case of the State that the said respondent had snatched the
\nkeys from the driver. It has been found that respondent was driving the
\nvehicle with the consent and under the authority of the driver of the jeep.
\nNothing has been brought on the record to show that any instruction had
\nbeen issued to the driver not to hand over the vehicle to any other
\nemployee of the State Government while on official duly. As such it has to
\nbe examined whether in this background, it is open to the State Government
\nto take a stand that the State Government shall not be vicariously liable
\nfor the act of respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The question of payment of compensation for motor accidents has assumed
\ngreat importance during the last few decades. The road accidents have
\ntouched a new height in India as well as in other parts of the world.
\nTraditionally, before court directed payment of tort compensation, the
\nclaimant had to establish the fault of the person causing injury or damage.
\nBut of late, it shall appear from different judicial pronouncements that
\nthe fault is being read as because of someone’s negligence or carelessness.
\nSame is the approach and altitude of the courts while judging the vicarious
\nliability of the employer for negligence of the employee. Negligence is the
\nomission to do something which a reasonable man is expected to do or a
\nprudent man is expected not to do. Whether in the facts and circumstances
\nof a particular case, the person causing injury to the other was negligent
\nor not has to be examined on the materials produced before the Court. It is
\nthe rule thai an employer, though guilty of on fault himself, is liable for
\nthe damage done by the fault or negligence of his servant acting in the
\ncourse of his employment. In some case, it can be found that an employee
\nwas doing an unauthorised act in an unauthorised but not a prohibited way.
\nThe employer shall be liable for such act, because such employee was acting
\nwithin the scope of his employment and in so acting done something
\nnegligent or wrongful A muster is liable even for acts which he had not
\nauthorised provided they are so connected with acts which he has been so
\nauthorised. On the other hand, if the act of the servant is not even
\nremotely connected within the scope of employment and is an independent
\nact, the master shall not be responsible because the servant is not acting
\nin the course of his employment but has gone outside. In Saimond’s Law of
\nTorts (Twentieth Edition) at page 458 it has been said:\n<\/p>\n
“……..On the other hand it has been held that a servant who is
\nauthorised to drive a motor-vehicle, and who permits an unauthorised person
\nto drive it in his place, may yet be acting within the scope of his
\nemployment. The act of permitting another to drive may be a mode, albeit an
\nimproper one, of doing the authorised work. The master may even be
\nresponsible if the servant impliedly, and not expressly, permits an
\nunauthorised person to drive the vehicle, as where he leaves it unattended
\nin such a manner that it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party
\nwill attempt to drive it, at least if the driver retains notional control
\nof the vehicle.”\n<\/p>\n
In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 16, paragraph 739 it
\nhas been stated:\n<\/p>\n
“Where the act which the employee is expressly authorised to do is lawful,
\nthe employer is nevertheless responsible for the manner in which the
\nemployee executes his authority. If, therefore, the employee does the act
\nin such a manner as to occasion injury to a third person, the employer
\ncannot escape liability on the ground that he did not actually authorise
\nthe particular manner in which the act was done, or even on the ground that
\nthe employee was acting on his own behalf and not on that of his employer.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of London County Council v. Cattennoles (Garages) Ltd., [1953]
\nAll ER 582, a workman was employed as a general garage hand, for moving
\ncars by-pushing them or giving guidance to the drivers. He was not
\ncompetent to drive, had no licence, and had been forbidden to do so. He got
\ninto a stationary van, started the engine, drove the van and went on to the
\nhighway. On the highway he collided with the plaintiff’s van. The employers
\nwere held liable. A person who is a servant has always a personal
\nindependent sphere of life and at any particular time he may be acting in
\nthat sphere. Fn that situation, the master cannot be responsible for what
\nhe does. When the act of the servant causes injury Io a third party the
\nquestion is not answered by merely applying the test whether the act itself
\nis one which the servant was ordered or forbidden lo do. The employer has
\nto shoulder the responsibility on a wider basis. In some situation he
\nbecomes responsible to third parties for acts which he has expressly or
\nimplicitly forbidden the servant to do.\n<\/p>\n
It was said in the case of Ilkiw v. Samuels and Others, [1963] 1 W.L.R. 991
\nat 998:\n<\/p>\n
“….., The driver of the vehicle. Waines, was employed, as I see<\/p>\n
it, not only to drive, but to be in charge of his vehicle in all
\ncircumstances during any such times as he was on duty. That means to say
\nthat, even when he was not himself siting at the controls, he remained in
\ncharge of the lorry, and in charge as his employers’ representative. His
\nemployers must remain liable for his negligence as long as the vehicle was
\nbeing used in the course of their business. As I understand the
\nauthorities, the employers escape liability if, but only if, the vehicle
\nwas, at the time of the negligent act, being used by the driver for the
\npurpose of what has been called a “frolic” of his own. That is not this
\ncase. Here, at the material time, this vehicle was in fact being used in
\nthe course of the defendants business.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further said at page 1005 :\n<\/p>\n
“…………. If, as in Ricketts’ case, and in the present case, the
\nmaster puts the vehicle in the charge and control of his servant to he used
\nfor the purposes of the masters business, he thereby delegates to the
\nservant his duty so to control it that it is driven with reasonable care
\nwhile being used for that purpose; and an express prohibition upon allowing
\nany other person lo drive it whilst being used for that purpose is no more
\nthan a direction as to the mode in which the servant shall perform the
\nduty. It is a prohibition dealing with conduct within the sphere of
\nemployment.”\n<\/p>\n
In respect of a contention that the driver to whom the vehicle had been
\nentrusted for driving had no authority from employer to delegate the
\ndriving of the vehicle to another person and because of that the employer
\ncannot he made vicariously liable for the negligence of some one to whom he
\nhad purported to delegate the control of the vehicle, it was said at page
\n1006:\n<\/p>\n
“The duty in tort of which he was in breach was, in my view, a duty
\ndelegated to him by the defendants under his contract of employment, and
\nfor that breach the defendants are vicariously liable notwithstanding that
\nit resulted from his breach of an express prohibition by the defendants
\nagainst permitting any other person to drive, for that prohibition did not
\nlimit the sphere of his employment, but dealt with the conduct of Waines
\nwithin that sphere.”\n<\/p>\n
It need not be pointed out that different considerations might arise if the
\nservant or some stranger was using the vehicle for purpose other than the
\npurpose of his master’s business and the accident occurred while the
\nvehicle was being used for that other purpose. But once it is found and
\nestablished that vehicle was being used for the business of the employer,
\nthen the employer will be held vicariously liable even for the lapse,
\nomission and negligence of his driver to whom the vehicle had been
\nentrusted for being driven for the business of the employer.\n<\/p>\n
In Staveley Iron & Chemical Co. Ltd, v, Jones, [1956] AC 627 = (1956) 1 All
\nER 403, it was said that the legislation has in no way altered the standard
\nof care which is required from workmen or employers or ‘that the standard
\ncan differ according to whether the workman is being sued personally or his
\nemployer is being sued in respect of his acts omissions in course of his
\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Pitshpabai v. Ranjit Ginning Co., [1977] 3 SCR 372, it was
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
“We would like to point out that the recent trend in law is to make the
\nmaster liable for acts which do not strictly fall within the term “in
\ncourse of the employment” as ordinarily understood. We have referred to
\nSitaram Motilal Kalal v. SantanuprasadJaishankar Bhat, (supra) where this
\nCourt accepted the law laid down by Lord Denning in Onnrod and Another v.
\n(supra) that the owner is not only liable for the negligence of the driver
\nif that driver is his servant acting in the course of his employment but
\nalso when the driver is, with the owner’s consent driving the car on the
\nowner’s business of for the owner’s purposes. This extension has been
\naccepted by this Court, The law as laid down by Lord Denning in Young v.
\nEdward Box and Co. Ltd., already referred to i.e. the first question is to
\nsee whether the servant is liable and if the answer is yes, the second
\nquestion is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s
\nliability, has been uniformally accepted as stated in Salmond Law of Torts.
\n15th Ed., p. 606 in Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 and approved by the House
\nof Lords in Staveley Iron & Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Jones [1956] A.C. 62? and
\nI.CI. Ltd. v. Shatwell, [1965] A.C. 656″\n<\/p>\n
From the facts of Pushpabai’s case (supra), it will appear that one
\nPurshottam Udeshi was travelling in a car which was driven the Manager of
\nthe first respondent company. The car dashed against a tree resulting in
\nthe death of purshottam. The widow and children of purshottam filed a claim
\nfor compensation. The High Court held that the respondent-company could not
\nbe held vicariously liable for the act of their driver in taking Purshottam
\nas a passenger as the said act was neither in the course of his employment
\nnor under any authority whatsoever. Therefore, the respondent-company was
\nnot liable to pay any compensation. It was pointed out by this Court that
\nrecent trend in law was to make the master liable for acts which do not
\nstrictly fall within the term “in the course of the employment” as
\nordinarily understood. It was held that the respondent-company was
\nvicariously liable in respect of the accident.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on the judgment in the case
\nof Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt, AIR<\/a> (1966) SC
\n[1697] = [19661] 3 SCR 527. In that case the owner of the vehicle entrusted
\nit to A for plying as a taxi. B used to clean the taxi. He was either
\nemployed by the owner or by A. A trained B to drive the vehicle and, took B
\nfor obtaining the licence for driving. While taking the test B caused
\nbodily injury to the respondent. At the time of the accident, A was not
\npresent in (he vehicle. On the question whether the owner was liable, it
\nwas held in the majority judgment that the owner was not liable because
\nevidence did not disclose that owner had employed B to drive the taxi or
\ngiven him the permission to drive the taxi. However, Subba Rao, J. (as he
\nthen was) held that the owner was liable because A did not exceed the
\nauthority conferred on him by the owner in employing B as a servant and
\npermitted him to drive the vehicle in order to obtain the licence for
\nassisting him as a driver. This case was considered by this Court in the
\ncase of’ Pushpabai’s (supra) and it was said that recent trend in law is to
\nmake the master liable for acts which do not strictly fulls within the term
\n“in the course of the employment” as ordinarily understood. The learned
\ncounsel for the appellants sought to distinguish Pushpabai’s ease by
\ncontending that therein this court accepted the unauthorised act of the
\ndriver being within the course of employment because of his occupying ‘high
\nposition of Manager’, whereas in the case at hand appellant No, 3 – the
\ndriver – was a class IV employee. We do not think that the ratio of the
\ncase turns on the position occupied by the driver. The real thrust .of the
\ndecision is acceptance of the trend to make the master liable for acts
\nwhich do not strictly fall within the term in the course of employment’ as
\nordinarily understood.\n<\/p>\n
In view of sub-section (1) of Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
\n(Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) no person can use or allow
\nany other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is
\nin force relation to the vehicle by that person, a policy of insurance
\ncomplying with the requirements of Chapter VIII. In view of sub-section (2)
\nof Section 94 (sub-section (2) of Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988),
\nthe said provision is not applicable to any vehicle owned by the Central or
\nState Government and used for government purposes. Sub-section (3) vests
\npower in the appropriate Government to exempt from the operation of sub-
\nsection (1) of Section 94 any vehicle even owned by any local authority of
\nany transport undertaking. Section 94 of the old Act as well as Section 146
\nof the new Act requires that a policy of insurance must provide insurance
\nagainst any liability to third parties incurred by the person using the
\nvehicle. But there is no such requirement so far the vehicles owned by the
\nCentral or State Government are concerned and if the exemptions are granted
\nfrom operation of sub-section (1) of Section 94 it is not incumbent even on
\nthe part of any local authority or any State transport undertaking to take
\nout insurance policy providing insurance against any liability to third
\nparties incurred by the person using the vehicle. In this background,
\naccording to us, the Courts while judging the liability of the Central or
\nSlate Government or local authorities or transport undertakings, which have
\nbeen exempted from the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 94, have to
\nbe more cautious, while recording a finding as to whether in the facts and
\ncircumstances of a particular case the Central or the State Government or
\nthe local authority of the transport undertaking In question can he held
\nvicariously liable for any act of its employee in the course of employment.
\nAs a result of commercial and industrial growth, even motor accidents are
\non sleep rise. For no fault or any contributory negligence of the victims
\nof such accidents, [he families are deprived of their bread carners. The
\njurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop towards
\nliberal approach, because of mounting highway accidents.\n<\/p>\n
Incidentally, it may be pointed out that in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
\nChapter VII A “liability without fault in certain .cases” has been
\nintroduced (Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988) . Sub-section (1) of
\nSection 92A provides that where the death or permanent disablement of any
\nperson has resulted from an accident arising out of the use. of a motor
\nvehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in
\nrespect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of
\nthe said Section, Sub-section (2) specifies a fixed amount for such
\nliability without fault. In view of sub-section (3) the claimant is not
\nrequired to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in
\nrespect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act,
\nneglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. Sub-section (4} of that
\nSection says in clear and unambiguous words that a claim for compensation
\nunder sub-section (1) of that section shall not be defeated by reason of
\nany wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose
\ndeath of permanent disablement the claim has been made. Section 92B
\nclarifies that the right to claim compensation under Section 92A in respect
\nof death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any
\nother right i.e. the right to claim compensation on principle of fault. The
\nintroduction of provisions creating liability without fault gives out that
\nthe Parliament has provided for payment of compensation within certain
\nlimits, ignoring the principle of fault. When even under the law of tort,
\ncourts have held that the employer is vicariously liable for an authorised
\nact done in an unauthorised manner taking into consideration the interest
\nof the victims of the accident, according to us, this approach is all the
\nmore necessary while judging the liability of the owner of the vehicle
\nunder the Statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the High Court has
\nrightly come to the conclusion, on basis of the pleadings and evidence on
\nrecord, that it was the year ending day i.e. 31.3.1980 and the clerks and
\nofficers were required to work during night time. This direction had been
\ngiven by the appellant No. 2 who was incharge of the office. It further
\nappears that after normal working hours of the office, the employees had
\ngone to their homes and were required to come back after taking dinner. The
\njeep was used for bringing such employees to the office. In this
\nbackground, there is no escape from conclusion that jeep was being used in
\nconnection with the affairs of the State and for official purpose. The High
\nCourt has also found that respondent who was the clerk in the office of
\nappellant No. 2 was driving the vehicle under the authority of the driver
\nwho was in charge of the said vehicle and as the driver had consumed more
\nliquor on that day he permitted respondent to drive the vehicle that night,
\nThe facts of the present case disclose and demonstrate that an authorised
\nact was being done in an unauthorised manner. The accident took place when
\nthe act authorised was being performed in a mode which may not be proper
\nbut nonetheless it was directly connected with in the course of
\nemployment’- it was not an independent act for a purpose or business which
\nhad no nexus or connection with the business of the State Government so as
\nto absolve the appellant State from the liability.\n<\/p>\n
The crucial test is whether the initial act of the employee was expressly
\nauthorised and lawful. The employer, as in the present case the State
\nGovernment, shall nevertheless be responsible for the manner in which the
\nemployee, that is, the driver and the respondent executed the authority.
\nThis is necessary to ensure so that the injuries caused to third parties
\nwho are not directly involved or concerned with the nature of authority
\nvested by the master to his servant are not deprived from getting
\ncompensation. If the dispute revolves around the mode or manner of
\nexecution of the authority of the master by the servant, the master cannot
\nescape the liability so far third parties are concerned on the ground that
\nhe had not actually authorised the particular manner in which the act was
\ndone. In the present case, it has been established beyond doubt that the
\ndriver of the vehicles had been fully authorised to drive the jeep for a
\npurpose connected with the affair of the state and the dispute is only in
\nrespect of the manner and the mode in which the said driver performed his
\nduties by allowing another employee of the State Government, who was also
\ngoing on an official duty, to drive the jeep, when the accident took place.
\nOnce it is established that negligent act of the driver and respondent was
\nin the course of employment’ the appellant State shall be liable for the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
We are of the view that the appellant Stale cannot escape its vicarious
\nliability to pay compensation to the heirs of the victim. The appeal is
\naccordingly dismissed there shall be no orders as to cost.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995 Bench: N.P. Singh, B.L. Hansaria CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7564 of 1995 PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. RESPONDENT: KANCHANMALA VIJASINCi SHIRKE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/1995 BENCH: N.P. SINGH & B.L. HANSARIA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/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-97371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And ... on 22 August, 1995 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And ... on 22 August, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-23T04:23:07+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T04:23:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4538,\"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\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And ... on 22 August, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T04:23:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And ... on 22 August, 1995 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And ... on 22 August, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-23T04:23:07+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995","datePublished":"1995-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T04:23:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995"},"wordCount":4538,"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\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995","name":"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And ... on 22 August, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T04:23:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-vs-kanchanmala-vijasinci-shirke-and-on-22-august-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And … on 22 August, 1995"}]},{"@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\/97371","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=97371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}