w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Chutukumar Kabarar Trivedi v/s The State of Maharashtra


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

    Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2015

    Decided On, 23 July 2015

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI

    For the Applicant: Anjali Patil a/w. Arun Rajput, Advocates. For the Respondent: A.R. Patil, APP.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard rival submissions on this appeal preferred by the appellant / original accused challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354B, 376(2)(i) of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, the appellant is sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000. For the offence punishable under Section 354B of IPC, he is sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, he is sentenced to suffer RI for ten years, which is the minimum awarded for the said section and fine of Rs.5000/-.

2. When the application for bail during pendency of the appeal was taken before this Court earlier, the substantive evidence of the prosecution witnesses was dealt with and that time it was ascertained that instead of deciding the application for bail it would be proper in the interest of justice to dispose of the entire appeal by putting it for final hearing and as such the matter is taken today for final hearing.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the appellant/accused was residing in the neighbourhood of the family of the complainant. The complainant is the mother of the victim girl. Said girl was then aged about 4 to 5 years when the incident happened in the afternoon of 23.4.2013. The victim girl along with her another sister elder than her and her parents were residing in the slum area in small hutment. The accused was also residing in the same locality and was in fact well known to the family of the complainant. Present appellant was being called as 'Chhotu uncle' by the children in the locality and also by the victim girl (PW-1). On the relevant afternoon the appellant called the victim girl in his hut and asked her to perform some dance on the music which was being played in his hut. The girl apparently then aged about 4 to 5 years started dancing. That time according to the case of prosecution the appellant removed her petticoat / frock and made her to dance only on the undergarments. Thereafter he asked the girl to take his penis in her mouth. The small child did as per the instructions and in fact felt vomiting sensation and as such started crying. On this the appellant took the child to her house. In fact this is the incident according to the case of the prosecution occurred on that afternoon. Thereafter on that night apparently nothing happened and on the next day early hours the small girl child woke up from the sleep. It happened on the early hours of 24.4.2013. That time the child felt like vomiting sensation and her mother i.e. PW-2 complainant took her to the WC and after the vomiting, gave her some medicine in the morning. Thereafter in the evening of 24.4.2013 the complaint was lodged with the police. The complaint was lodged by PW-2 mother of the victim girl as what she revealed from the child at the early hours of 24.4.2013. On the strength of the complaint the offence was registered on that night of 24.4.2013 and immediately within two hours the present appellant was put under arrest.

4. During the investigation, the spot panchnama was conducted. It was apparently the house of the appellant but in fact nothing incriminating was found. But it is also a factual position that there was no mobile or no any sound playing instrument found in the hutment of the appellant. This is significant inasmuch the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was asked to dance on the music which was being played in the hut of the appellant. The victim girl and the appellant were sent for medical examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed. The appellant accused was convicted for the offences, as detailed earlier.

5. During the trial there were total five witnesses examined. PW-1 is the victim girl. At the time of recording of evidence her age was about six years. PW-2 is the mother of the victim girl. PW-3 is then about 10 to 11 years old girlfriend of the PW-1. Last two prosecution witnesses are the investigating officers – one of them registered the FIR and other carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet. The only important evidence is that of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. In the present case it is significant that no doctor is examined as the medical examination reports of the girl and also of the appellant were admitted by the defence. It was apparently so as the medical examination report of the girl was only to the effect ascertaining her age by way of different clinical and X-ray tests. Her age is ascertained as 4 to 5 years. Also the medical certificate of the appellant/accused was not of much significance inasmuch as the case of the prosecution is not of actual carnal intercourse, but, it was allegedly putting the penis of the appellant in the mouth of the child. The medical examination of both was conducted after two days of the incident and of course their could not have been any material available in the medical examination of the girl or for that matter of the appellant so far as the actual commission of the crime. Of course, the clothes of the appellant were taken charge of and were sent for chemical analysis but the report of the CA is not finding of any seminal stains on the clothes.

6. Considering the above specific circumstances of the commission of the offence the only substantive evidence which is required to be analyzed is that of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as mentioned earlier. So far as the PW-1 is concerned, the age of the girl is of very crucial significance. During the incident she was 4 to 5 years of age and when she gave evidence before the Court which is practically in the question and answer format, she was of 6 years age. Various answers are given by her during her examination-in-chief and also in the cross-examination. In the examination-in-chief she identified the appellant/accused sitting in the Court then, as Chotu uncle. She also apparently narrated that he took her to his hut and asked her to dance on some music being played. She also specifically mentioned regarding the actual incident and then also answered that she started crying and then the appellant took her to her hut. During the cross-examination certain questions were asked to the said tender age child, of course taking all the precautions of not being hostile to the child while putting her to the cross-examination. But it is brought on record that the child had identified the appellant as told by her parents. The child also answered that Chotu uncle was known to her as staying in the same locality. At one point of time, when a question was asked to the child whatever she has` deposed before court was not true but the child answered that 'no it was true' and she has stated so correctly. But again on the next question when the question was asked in a different format the child had answered and according to the defence that answer is in favour of the defence. The actual questions and answers which were recorded by the trial Court are reproduced in order to have the proper appreciation of the answers given by the child :

Que. Is it true that whatever incident told by you was not true?

Ans. No it is true.

Que. Is it correct that no such incident as told by you took place?

Ans. Yes.

Still one more question and answer was highlighted by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the arguments and the same is as under :

Que.Is it true that whatever you deposed on the last date was stated on the say of your mother?

Ans. Yes.

7. In fact the answers given by a small child are required to be considered in the light of other material available on record and only mere answers given by her either alleging any conduct on the part of the appellant or giving the answers supporting the defence cannot be construed as sufficient to hold the conviction. This is more so when on the face of it the offence is of very heinous nature if accepted as established and also attracting minimum punishment of 10 years. There is no scope of lesser sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) if established and when the new definition of the offence of rape is accepted as mentioned in Section 375(a) of IPC.

8. In view of the above state of affairs of the child witness evidence, now the substantive evidence of the complainant PW-2 is required to be construed in order to ascertain whether the events had happened in the manner as reported to the police by the complainant. In the substantive evidence of PW2 she had stated that on the day of the incident i.e. on 23.4.2013 itself in the afternoon her daughter the victim child came crying and she had a vomit in the house. Immediately she was taken to the nearest dispensary and after administering some medication the child was taken to the police station and the complaint was lodged. It is the specific evidence of PW2 that on the day of the incident the complaint was lodged with the police. She is silent on the aspect as to she learnt entire episode at the early hours of the next day when the child woke up from the sleep and felt like vomiting sensation. All that material which was mentioned in the FIR was brought on record as and by way of the omission and proved through the investigating officer during the trial. As such there is a discrepancy in the actual case of the prosecution as portrayed by lodging the FIR and what is told before the Court by PW2 complainant. On this aspect the learned APP for the State stated that the said complainant is an illiterate lady and had studied upto second standard and as such required to be given an allowance while narrating the incident before the Court. Still if such argument is considered the question remains that according to the substantive evidence of the small child (PW-1) there was nothing like disclosure to her mother immediately in the afternoon of 23.4.2013 and according to PW2 mother the child came crying on the same afternoon and then the complaint was lodged with the police. However, it is a factual position and also fortified by the substantive evidence of PW4 and PW5, the investigating officers, that the complaint was lodged on the next day night and prior to 7 p.m. of 24.4.2013 there was no information to the police regarding the alleged incident taken place in the afternoon of 23.4.2013. As such, in the opinion of this Court this variance in the actual incident and narration to the police is a mitigating circumstance to the case of prosecution and apparently this has been overlooked by the trial Court.

9. Apart from the above, there is another check in order to establish the authenticity or correctness of the case of the prosecution and that is by way of substantive evidence of PW3 the friend of the small child. Said PW-3 was then about 10 to 11 years of age rather matured in age than that of the child. Entire substantive evidence of PW-3 goes to suggest that in that afternoon of 23.4.2013 she was playing with her friend by name Pappi and then they went to the house of Chotu uncle and they saw the victim girl dancing at the house of said Chotu uncle, without any clothes. This PW-3 was also of tender age of 11 years and most of her evidence is in question and answer and which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference.

Q.12. Do you know Chhotu uncle?

Ans. Yes.

Q.13. At which place Chhotu uncle resides?

Ans. He stays on the 'mala' of the house of Murthi Anna and there are two three houses in between my house and Murthi Anna's house.

Q.14. What did you see on the date of incident on 23.04.2013 ?

Ans. On that day myself and my mummy were returning home from temple. On that day we had holiday. Then myself, Chanchal and our another friend Pappi went to the house of Chhotu uncle for giving him prasad.

When we went there music was being played in the house of Chhotu uncle and Geeta was dancing without any clothes.

Q.15. Who was in the house of Chhotu uncle at that time ?

Ans. No one except Chhotu and Geeta were in the house.

Q. 16. What did you do thereafter ?

Ans. We asked Geeta to come with us for playing.

But she did not immediately come and so we went and started playing and thereafter Geeta came.

Q. 17. How was the condition of the Geeta when she came down stairs ?

Ans. Geeta was wearing only a nicker.

Q. 18. Did she play with you ?

Ans. No. She went home.

Q. 19. Had you gone to police station ?

Ans. No.

Q. 20. Did you tell the police what you saw in the house of Chhotu uncle ?

Ans. No.

10. The effect of the above substantive evidence of PW3 goes to show that victim child was dancing in the house of the appellant and she was not having any clothes. According to PW3 the music was being played in that house. After PW3 and her another friend called the victim girl she had not immediately came out and continued dancing and thereafter came out and thereafter the girl went home alone. Significantly enough there is nothing like the victim girl came out of the house of the appellant crying and the appellant taking her to her home. During the cross-examination it is brought on record that it was not unusual that in the said area and locality the small children roam here and there with very less clothes on their persons and at times only undergarments or nicker. Apparently, this is quite possible considering the age of the small child i.e. 4 to 5 years that the child may move around having only a pant on her person.

11. During the arguments, learned APP for the State submitted three points. Firstly he mentioned that PW-2 complainant was illiterate lady and as such she could not have given the proper account of the events known to her from the child. Secondly it is submitted that the appellant was absconding as is stated by police officer PW-4. However the factual position is that the offence was registered at about 9 p.m. or so on 24.4.2013 and the appellant/accused was arrested at about 11 p.m. just within two hours or so from the lodging of the FIR. For this small period it can hardly be said that the accused was absconding. Still the abscondance of the accused by itself cannot be taken as establishment of his guilt. Only it might be relevant to throw light on his conduct. Thirdly, it is argued on behalf of the State that mere tutoring of a child was in fact natural considering the age of small child i.e. at the time of incident about 4 to 5 years and at the time of giving evidence about 6 years. By pointing out this it is submitted that father and mother are bound to tell so many things to the child when the child is asked to give evidence in the Court. Of course in appreciating the evidence of a child witness the Court must be on its guard. In other words it is always not possible to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of a child witness as the evidence of a child is vulnerable to many circumstances. Unless there is other cognate material to come to the establishment of the offence and that also in such a case of grave offence which carries minimum punishment of ten years of imprisonment, there must be much care and caution to be taken while analyzing the evidence brought before the Court. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, a doubt has been c

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

reated as to whether the accused person had actually committed an offence or he has been falsely implicated. This is more so when the probable defence on behalf of the accused is put forth to PW-2 the complainant that the appellant had given a loan of Rs.10000/- to the father of the child and there was dispute over the said amount as the money was not being repaid. On this aspect, learned APP further argued that a person may not put the character of his child to stake while refusing to pay the amount of loan if accepted. However, in the matter it is to be ascertained whether the prosecution has established its case by way of the material available on record and in that event in the considered view of this Court the material brought before the trial Court is not of that standard to convict the accused for the offences charged and that also mainly for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC which carry the minimum imprisonment of ten years. In the result, present appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly disposed. Hence the order : ORDER i. Criminal Appeal No.571 of 2015 is allowed; ii. The impugned judgment and order passed by Designated Court under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.434 of 2013 dated 18th April, 2015 is quashed and set aside. The appellant / accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(B), 376(2)(i) of IPC; iii. The appellant / accused be released from jail custody, if not required in any other case; iv. The fine amount if already paid, the same shall be returned back to the appellant; v. Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 Devyani Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Anant Dattatraya Pashilkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Mohammed Aslam Azad Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Kishor Laxman Lonari, Convict No. C/52 Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Prison – 3, State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Haseena Babu Sanadi @ Haseena Rasul Tadwal Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Priyanka Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principle Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Dadarao & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mansing Shankarrao Mane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box