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



Ganesh Pralhad Sontakke v/s State of Maharashtra


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

Company & Directors' Information:- GANESH CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311PN2011PTC141089

    Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2005

    Decided On, 25 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH PITALE

    For the Appellant: Aniruddha Anantha Krishnan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Geeta Tiwari, APP.



Judgment Text

1. The appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 16.09.2005 passed by the Sessions Court, Nagpur (trial Court), in Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2004, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

2. The prosecution case was that about seven months prior to the prosecutrix PW1 submitting oral report to the Police dated 8.7.2004, the appellant (original accused) had caught hold of the prosecutrix when she had gone to a nearby field to answer nature's call. He allegedly removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After about eight days, when the prosecutrix had gone to the house of the appellant for viewing television programme, as no other person was present, the appellant again committed sexual intercourse with her. It is relevant that the house of the appellant was adjoining the house of the prosecutrix PW1 and that the appellant was on visiting terms with the family of the prosecutrix PW1. According to the prosecution, after some period when the prosecutrix PW1 started suffering abdominal pain, she was taken for medical examination and it was found that she was pregnant. The prosecutrix PW1 then disclosed details about the said acts of sexual intercourse committed by the appellant to her mother Vanita PW4. Thereafter oral report dated 8.7.2004 was submitted in the Police Station leading to registration of first information report (FIR) against the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, trial commenced against the appellant.

3. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. PW1 was the prosecutrix herself, PW2 Bandu was panch witness for spot panchanama, PW3 Dhondba was the father of the prosecutrix, PW4 Vanita was the mother, PW5 Dr. Harsha medically examined the prosecutrix, PW6 Dr. Anuprita was the Gynecologist who examined the prosecutrix, PW7 was the investigating officer, PW8 was the Village Development Officer of Gram Panchayat and PW9 was the peon working in the Gram Panchayat.

4. The prosecutrix PW1 claimed that her date of birth was 10.09.1989, demonstrating that when the incident occurred she was less than 16 years of age. In order to support the said claim, school leaving certificate and birth certificate from Gram Panchayat were produced. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses PW8 and PW9 were examined to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix PW1. On the basis of such material, the trial Court found that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was indeed 10.09.1989 and that, therefore, consent was immaterial in the present case, as she was found to be less than 16 years of age. The trial Court also found that the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 read with the medical evidence on record, was sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On this basis, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant.

5. Mr. Aniruddha Anantha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court had committed error in giving finding to the effect that date of birth as 10.09.1989 stood proved in the present case. It was submitted that the oral and documentary evidence on record on the said point was not sufficient to prove the claim of the prosecutrix PW1. It was submitted that the witnesses PW8 and PW9 had admitted in cross-examination that there were certain over writings in the original register wherein the birth of the prosecutrix PW1 had been recorded by the Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix as regards the incidents of alleged forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant was vague and that it was not reliable. A specific suggestion had been given on behalf of the defence that the prosecutrix PW1 was having an affair with her own cousin from whom she was pregnant. Even in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it had been stated by the appellant that he was falsely implicated as the prosecutrix PW1 was pregnant from her own cousin, with whom she had lived for 5 to 6 months. It was submitted that in the face of such material on record, it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to have conducted DNA test of the child who was born to the prosecutrix PW1 so as to ascertain her paternity. This was deliberately not done by the Investigating Officer to shield the actual culprit in the present case. On this basis, it was contended that the impugned judgment and order deserved to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, submitted that the evidence in respect of date of birth of the prosecutrix was elaborate as documents as well as oral evidence were brought on record to prove the said fact. It was submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix was trustworthy and that merely because DNA test was not conducted by the investigating officer, the prosecution case could not be disbelieved. It was submitted that the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant on the basis that the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 and the medical evidence on record was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case if the finding rendered by the trial Court that date of birth of the prosecutrix PW1 was 10.09.1989 was accepted, there would be no question of consent in the present case and if the fact of sexual intercourse stood proved, the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, stood proved. On the question of proof of date of birth, the prosecution placed on record date of birth certificate Exh.22 issued by Gram Panchayat Narsala, as also certificate issued by Head Master of Primary School and Secondary School. In addition, prosecution witnesses PW8 and PW9 were examined who were the Village Development Officer and peon respectively of the Gram Panchayat. These witnesses had brought the register of the Gram Panchayat wherein birth of the prosecutrix PW1 as 10.09.1989 was recorded. A perusal of the said document shows that the date of birth certificate Exh.22 issued by the Gram Panchayat is a document issued by public body. The prosecution witness PW8 being the Village Development Officer appeared before the Court along with the register Exh.36, wherein date of birth as 10.09.1989 of the prosecutrix PW1 was shown to have been recorded on 30.09.1989 itself and the said witness as well as PW9 peon of the Gram Panchayat supported the entry in the said register. Although in cross-examination there are certain admissions made by these witnesses pertaining to entry made in the said register, they cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is stated by these witnesses in the cross-examination that the name of the prosecutrix PW1 has been written in a different ink as compared to the other details in the register. But, this fact alone would not adversely affect the evidence of the said two witnesses based on entry in the said register, because the name of the prosecutrix PW1, could have been entered later, after the naming ceremony of the prosecutrix PW1. In any case, the said entry in the register read with the date of birth certificate Exh.22 issued by the Gram Panchayat and the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW8 and PW9 appears to be sufficient to prove that the date of birth of the prosecutrix PW1 was indeed 10.09.1989. The finding rendered by the trial Court in this regard cannot be said to be erroneous.

8. The evidence on record pertaining to the claim of the prosecution that the appellant was responsible for committing forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, resulting in her giving birth to a girl child, depends primarily on the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1. This is because the evidence given by her father PW3 and her mother PW4 was necessarily hearsay in nature. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in detail the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1.

9. A perusal of her evidence shows that according to her, about seven months prior to submitting oral report to the Police dated 8.7.2004, the appellant had dragged her when she had gone to the field and upon removing her clothes he had forcibly committed intercourse with her. She has further stated that after two to four days (although the trial Court has recorded that it was after 7 days), she had gone to the house of the appellant for viewing television programme, when the appellant again committed the act of sexual intercourse with her. It appears strange that the prosecutrix PW1, having suffered forcible sexual intercourse from the appellant two to four days earlier, chose to visit his house to view television programme when he was alone in the house. There are no dates or other details given by the prosecutrix as regards the aforesaid two incidents of alleged forcible sexual intercourse committed by the appellant with her. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that the son of her maternal uncle was of her age. She also admitted that certain statements made by her in the evidence were not found in her original statement made to the Police pertaining to her blaming the appellant when it was found that she was pregnant. A specific suggestion was made on behalf of the defence that the prosecutrix PW1 was pregnant from Vishnu s/o Ambadas i.e. the very maternal cousin of the prosecutrix PW1, who she had conceded to be of her own age. A suggestion was also given to her that she had falsely implicated the appellant, which she had denied in cross-examination.

10. Since the trial Court has held that the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 and that the medical evidence on record was sufficient to prove the prosecution case, it is necessary to examine the medical evidence on record. PW5 Dr. Harsha had medically examined the prosecutrix PW1 after registration of FIR. Her evidence only shows that the prosecutrix PW1 was capable of sexual intercourse and that her last menstruation was in the month of November, 2003. The medical examination report also does not reveal anything significant other than the fact that the prosecutrix PW1 was pregnant. PW6 Dr. Anuprita, was the Gynecologist who examined prosecutrix PW1. She gave statement about the tenure of pregnancy of the prosecutrix PW1 when she was examined. There was nothing significant brought on record by the cross-examination of the said witness. But, a statement made in the examination-in-chief of PW5 Dr. Harsha assumes significance. The said witness has stated that when history was recorded, prosecutrix PW1 had stated to her that intercourse had taken place twice with her neighbour about six to seven months back on the promise to marry her. This statement of the prosecutrix PW1 given to the Doctor was at complete variance with her statements made in the oral report and in her evidence recorded in the Court.

11. The stated case of the prosecutrix PW1 in her oral report to the Police, as also her revelation to her mother and in her evidence before the Court was that the appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, firstly in the field and secondly in his house when she had gone to view television programme. There was not a whisper of any promise of marriage by the appellant, on the basis of which he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix PW1. Doctor PW5 had no reason to record wrong history of her patient and if the prosecutrix PW1 indeed made a statement to the Doctor PW5 that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her twice on the promise of marriage, it falsifies her claim in the statement made to the Police and in the evidence given before the Court. Apart from this, in the oral report given to the Police and even in the evidence tendered in the Court, the claims made by the prosecutrix PW1 are vague. It is stated that about seven months prior to submitting the oral report dated 8.7.2004, the first act of forcible sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant and that two to four days thereafter, a similar act was repeated in the house of the appellant. As noted above, it was strange that when the prosecutrix PW1 had suffered forcible sexual intercourse from the appellant in a field just two to four days prior, she chose to visit the house of the appellant when he was alone, ostensibly to view television programme. These facts, assume significance when a specific defence of false implication was raised on behalf of the appellant.

12. In the cross-examination, specific suggestions were made to the prosecutrix PW1 that she was having a love affair with her own maternal cousin from whom she was pregnant. In the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., it was specifically stated that the prosecutrix PW1 had lived with the said maternal cousin for five to six months and that she was pregnant from him. In this situation, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to have conducted DNA test of the girl child born to the prosecutrix PW1. It was stated in the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 that after the girl child was born in Government Hospital at Kamthi, she had gifted that child to a couple. Thus, it has come on record that a girl child was born, who was available for conducting DNA test to ascertain paternity of the child. When it was the specific case of the appellant that he had not committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix PW1 and when a defence was raised that she was pregnant from Vishnu s/o Ambadas , her maternal cousin, it was necessary for the investigating officer to have conducted DNA test to ascertain the truth in the matter. But, he failed to do so. When specifically asked in the cross-examination, the investigating officer PW7 simply stated that he did not find it necessary to conduct DNA test. A suggestion was also given in cross-examination that he had purposely not conducted DNA test, which he denied.

13. The failure on the part of the investigating officer PW7 to conduct DNA test becomes fatal for the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noted above, the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 is absolutely vague as regards two alleged acts of forcible sexual intercourse inflicted by the appellant on her. There is absence of particulars and the allegation appears to have been made in very general and vague terms. The statement of the prosecutrix that when she was found to be pregnant, she told her mother that the appellant was responsible, is also an omission, which has been proved in the cross-examination of the investigating officer PW7. In this situation, it was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to have brought on record material to show that the girl child born to the prosecutrix PW1 was indeed fathered by the appellant. This is so, because the sole testimony of the prosecutrix PW1 in the present case does not appear to be trustworthy and of sterling quality. It would be unsafe to convict the appellant on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix PW1, in the face of the aforesaid material on record.

14. The trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and convicted the appellant on the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1, read with the medical evidence. A perusal of the medical evidence shows that there was nothing significant brought on record against the appellant. All that the documentary evidence and the evidence of two Doctors PW5 and PW6 sh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ows that the prosecutrix PW1 was capable of sexual intercourse and that she was pregnant at the time of the medical examination. The clinching proof against the appellant would only have been DNA test, which was not conducted in the present case. 15. In the case of Mukesh and another .vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2017) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into account various earlier judgments pertaining to authenticity of DNA test, has held as follows:- '228. From the aforesaid authorities, it is quite clear that DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented and for non-acceptance of the same, it is to be established that there had been no quality control or quality assurance. If the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence as to tampering of samples, the DNA test report is to be accepted.' Hence, there cannot be any doubt that DNA test in the present case would have been proper, scientific and clinching evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. Having not conducted the said test, the prosecution case has suffered a fatal blow, which the trial Court did not appreciate while passing the impugned judgment and order. 16. In view of the above, it becomes obvious that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution fell short of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was unsustainable. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. Since the appellant is on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
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
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune 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 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others 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
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
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra 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 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 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 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
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 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 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 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others 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 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra 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 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
21-04-2020 N. Sampath Ganesh & Others Versus Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Through Regional Director (Western Region) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
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 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 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
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The 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 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
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
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another 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
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
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
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
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
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
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra 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 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another 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 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 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & 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
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 Dr. B. Ganesh Versus The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore (now State Bank of India), Wayanad Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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
04-03-2020 R. Kavitha Versus S. Ganesh Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
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 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 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 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
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad


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