{"id":100600,"date":"2011-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2"},"modified":"2016-07-18T23:42:35","modified_gmt":"2016-07-18T18:12:35","slug":"rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/963\/2007\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 963 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 569 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nRAKESHKUMAR\n@ PATHUBHAI AMARSINGH PARMAR - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nTEJAS M BAROT for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMRS. MANISHA LUVKUMAR SHAH APP\nfor Opponent(s) : 1,\n \n\n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/08\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
1.0\tCriminal
\nAppeal and Criminal Revision Application arise out of a judgement and
\norder rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th
\nFast Track Court, Anand (hereinafter referred to as  the learned
\ntrial Judge ) on 05.07.2007 in Session Case No. 69 of 2006 (Old
\nSessions Case No. 188 of 2002).  The learned trial Judge recorded the
\nconviction of original accused No. 1- Rakeshkumar @ Pathubhai
\nAmarsinh Parmar for the commission of offence punishable under
\nSections 498-A, 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short  IPC )
\nand Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The original
\naccused No. 1 was awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for two
\nyears with fine of Rs. 1000\/- in default of payment of fine, simple
\nimprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section
\n498-A of IPC, sentence of simple imprisonment for five years with
\nfine of Rs. 2000\/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment
\nfor three months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the
\nIPC, sentence of simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.
\n2000\/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for fifteen
\nday for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
\nProhibition Act.\n<\/p>\n
1.1\tOriginal
\naccused Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted from the charges levelled against
\nthem for the offence punishable under Sections 498-S, 306, 114 of the
\nIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.0\tThe
\noriginal accused No. 1 Rakeshkumar @ Pathubhai Amarsingh Parmar
\nchalleged his conviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 963 of
\n2007. At the time of admitting this appeal, this Court by order dated
\n17.07.2007 has ordered  to issue  Suo Motu notice as to why the
\nsubstantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge should not be
\nenhanced under the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure under Section 377 of Code of Criminal Procedure and
\ndirected that this may be treated as Revision Application which came
\nto be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 569 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
3.0\tThe
\nfacts of the case emerging from the record are as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tThe
\nmarriage of deceased Bismilla was solemnized with original accused
\nNo. 1 three years back as per the customs of the caste. The deceased
\nwas residing in joint family at village Kherad. During the short span
\nof marriage the accused used to demand dowry and Bismilla was meted
\nout with physical and mental cruelty. Prior to eight months from the
\ndate of incident the deceased and original accused No. 1 came to the
\nparental home of the deceased. The original accused No. 1 demanded
\nRs. 30,000\/- for construction of house. At that time the widow mother
\nof  the deceased was unable to give  money. Therefore by mortgaging
\nfour golden chains weighing 4 Tolas she gave the money. The appellant
\nagain demanded Rs. 1,00,000\/- for purchasing jeep, which could not be
\narranged at that point of time. The sister of deceased who had stayed
\nwith the deceased for some time told that the appellant and in-laws
\nof the deceased harassed the deceased mentally and physically. The
\ndeceased had come to her parental home and she told her sister that
\nif the demands were not fulfilled, it would be difficult for her to
\nlive. On 15.03.2006 it was telephonically informed that the deceased
\ngot burn injuries  and during treatment she passed away. Therefore,
\ncomplaint was lodged before Khambolad Police Station against the
\naccused  for the offence punishable Sections 498-A, 306, 114 of the
\nIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was
\nregistered as I- C.R. No. 74 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\tNecessary
\ninvestigation was carried out and statements of  witnesses were
\nrecorded. Ultimately, chargesheet was filed against the accused
\nbefore the court of  learned JMFC,  Anand.\n<\/p>\n
3.3\tThereafter,
\nas the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same
\nwas committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th
\nFast Track Court, Anand under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was
\nnumbered as Sessions Case No. 69 of 2006. The trial was initiated
\nagainst the accused.\n<\/p>\n
3.4\tTo
\nprove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the
\nfollowing witnesses:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Hemangbhai Rameshchandra Shah-Exh.13<\/p>\n
[2]\tManubhai
\nBalwantsinh-Exh. 20<\/p>\n
[3]\tSikandarkhan
\nRafikahemad Pathan-Exh. 21<\/p>\n
[4]\tHanifaben
\nRasidkhan Pathan-Exh. 23<\/p>\n
[5]\tNizumddin
\nRafikahemad Pathan-Exh. 24<\/p>\n
[6]\tThakorbhai
\nAmbalal Thakkar-Exh. 25<\/p>\n
[7]\tAnwarkhan
\nRafikkhan Pathan-Exh. 26<\/p>\n
[8]\tMansing
\nHimmatsinh Raval-Exh. 27<\/p>\n
[9]\tArifali
\nKasamali Saiyed-Exh. 30<\/p>\n
[10]\tNatvatsinh
\nBhupatsinh-Exh. 33<\/p>\n
[11]\tVabang
\nJamir-Exh. 35<\/p>\n
[12]\tAbhesinh
\nLalubha Vaghela-Exh. 36<\/p>\n
[13]\tBhalchandra
\nBaburav Kadve-Exh. 42<\/p>\n
3.5\tIn
\norder to support the case, the prosecution has produced the following
\ndocuments:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tOriginal
\ncomplaint-Exh. 22<\/p>\n
[2]\tPanchnama
\nof scene of offence-Exh. 29<\/p>\n
[3]\tInquest
\npanchnama-Exh. 31<\/p>\n
[4]\tPost
\nmortem report-Exh. 15<\/p>\n
[5]\tCause
\nof death certificate-Exh. 16<\/p>\n
[6]\tYadi
\nwritten to Medical Officer-Exh. 14<\/p>\n
[7]\tSlip
\nsigned by panchas-Exh. 14<\/p>\n
[8]\tA
\ncopy of Station Diary-Exh. 34<\/p>\n
[9]\tReceipt
\nof F.S.L-Exh. 54<\/p>\n
[10]\tA
\nletter of F.S.L-Exh. 54<\/p>\n
[11]\tF.S.L
\nReport -Exh. 56<\/p>\n
3.6\tAt
\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under
\nsection 313 of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of
\nprosecution and the defence, the  learned Sessions Judge acquitted
\noriginal accused Nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them
\nand convicted the original accused No. 1 –
\nRakeshkumar @ Pathubhai Amarsinh Parmar for the commission of offence
\npunishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code
\n(for short  IPC ) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
\nAct. The original accused No. 1 was awarded sentence of simple
\nimprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1000\/- in default of
\npayment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence
\npunishable under Section 498-A of IPC, sentence of simple
\nimprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 2000\/- in default of
\npayment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence
\npunishable under Section 306 of the IPC, sentence of simple
\nimprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 2000\/- in default of
\npayment of fine, simple imprisonment for fifteen day for the offence
\npunishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.7\tBeing
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order
\npassed by the Sessions Court the appellant has preferred the present
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.0\tIn
\nconnection with Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2007 Mr. T.M. Barot,
\nlearned advocate for the appellant-convict has taken us through the
\nevidence of the complainant P.W. 3 Sikandarkhan Rafikahemad Pathan,
\nP.W. 4 Hanifaben Rasidkhan Pathan at Exh. 23, P.W. 2 Manubhai
\nBalwantsinh at Exh. 20 who has reached immediately at the scene of
\noffence. He has also taken us through the medical evidence and
\nevidence of P.W. 5  Nizamuddin Rafikmahammad Pathan at Exh. 24 and
\nP.W. 6 Thakorbhai Ambalal Thakkar at Exh. 25 and submitted that the
\neven if the evidence of all the witnesses is taken there is no
\noffence under Section 306 of IPC. He submitted that all the witnesses
\nhave given statements regarding demand. Therefore, Section 306 would
\nnot be applicable. He submitted that as per the independent witness
\nwho is neighbourer, the incident was accidental. P.W. 2 Manubhai
\nBalwantsinh who was examined at Exh. 20 reached immediately at the
\nplace of incident. This witness deposed that victim had burnt because
\nof the lamp and no one is responsible for the death. . He has also
\nmade endevour that there are inconsistent in the deposition of the
\neach witnesses. There are different versions of the witnesses
\nregarding the demand made by the appellant. Therefore, prosecution
\nhas not proved demand. He has also submitted that no offence is made
\nout under Section 306 of IPC. There is no instigation or provocation
\nto the victim. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is
\nrequired to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n
Manisha Luvkumar Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has taken
\nus through the judgment and order as well as evidence. She has
\nsupported the judgment and order and submitted that in view of
\nobservation made by the trial Court in paras 36 to 43 where the trial
\nCourt has discussed the evidence contained therein and prosecution
\nhas successfully proved the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of
\nthe IPC and notice issued by this Court for converting conviction
\nunder Section 304B where minimum sentence is seven years. Therefore,
\nfrom five years it should be increased to seven years. She has also
\nsubmitted that since the dowry is proved under Sections 3 and 4 of
\nthe Dowry Prohibition Act, the trial Court has rightly convicted the
\naccused under Section 498-A and this is a case of suicide. Therefore,
\nin view of the demand made by the accused No. 1 the victim daughter
\nof widow mother has no other option but to commit suicide in the
\ninterest of family and unmarried sister. She had submitted that the
\nview taken by the trial Court is just and proper. Keeping in mind the
\nevidence of complainant P.W. 3 Sikandarkhan Rafikahmad Pathan who is
\nuncle of the deceased and evidence of  P.W. 5  Nizamuddin
\nRafikmahammad at Exh. 24 the view taken by the trial Court is just
\nand proper. She has also taken us through the panchnama and so called
\nlamp as stated by P.W. 2 Manubhai Balwantsih. The lamp was not found
\nfrom the scene of offence and she has also taken us through the FSL
\nreport at Exh. 56 where she clearly stated that kerosene was found
\nand this is  clear case of committing suicide. Therefore, sentence
\nawarded atleast should be converted into rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tWe
\nhave heard learned advocates for both the parties. We
\nhave considered the record and proceedings of the trial Court in the
\ncontext of the submissions made by the rival sides.\n<\/p>\n
6.1\tConsidering
\nthe evidence of witnesses, more particularly the complainant
\nSikandarkhan Rafikahemad Pathan(P.W.3), Hanifaben Rasidkhan
\nPathan(P.W.4), Nizamuddin Rafikmahammad Pathan(P.W.5), Thakorbhai
\nAmbalal Thakkar (P.W. 6), it is clearly established that the
\nappellant has demanded from time to time and for that purpose the
\ngolden chains were given to the present appellant. Apart from that
\nafter that incident demand has also increased for the vehicle and
\nalso that appellant was entitled from the subsidiary from the
\nin-laws. Looking to the family circumstances the victim has no other
\noption but to take this step under the constant pressure from the
\nappellant of unreasonable demand from the in-laws.\n<\/p>\n
6.2\tWe
\nhave minutely considered the evidence of P.W. 7 Anwarkhan Rafikkhan
\nPathan at Exh. 26 who has clearly stated that appellant himself has
\ntaken four golden chains which clearly support the version of the
\nprosecution. In that view of the matter keeping in mind the overall
\nversion of the family of the victim and conduct of the present
\nappellant, it clearly established that the offence under Section
\n498-A and dowry the victim has no other option but to commit suicide.
\nThe span of marriage is less than seven years. Therefore, presumption
\nunder Section 113 is also against the present appellant. The present
\nappellant has miserably failed to remove  that presumption.\n<\/p>\n
6.3\tIn
\nthat view of the matter keeping in mind the discussion and conclusion
\nreached by the Sessions Court is just and proper.  Therefore,
\nRevision Application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The story
\nof the prosecution and defence regarding lamp and accidental death is
\nnot believable inasmuch as the same was not found from the scene of
\noffence on the contrary we accept that it will invite under Section
\n102 they have destroyed the evidence. Therefore, appeal of the
\nappellant convict is required to be dismissed and revision
\napplication is required to be partly allowed. However, we are of the
\nview that interest of justice would be met by converting the simple
\nimprisonment into rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tCriminal
\nAppeal No. 963 of 2007 preferred by the appellant-convict (original
\naccused No. 1) against the judgment and order of conviction and
\nsentence dated 05.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
\nJudge, 5th Fast Track Court, Anand in Sessions Case No. 69
\nof 2006 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tCriminal
\nRevision Application No. 569 of 2007 (Suo Motu Proceedings) for
\nenhancement of the substantive sentence is partly allowed. Conviction
\nunder Section 306 and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for
\nfive years and imposition of fine of Rs. 2000\/-, in default to
\nundergo further simple imprisonment for three months is converted
\ninto sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of
\nRs. 2000\/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for
\nthree months. The rest of the order shall remain the same. The
\naccused shall be given set off of the period of sentence already
\nundergone and the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
9.0\tIt
\nis made clear that the amount of Rs. 5000\/- to be paid to P.W. 4
\nHanifaben Rasidkhan Pathan.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(K.S.JHAVERI,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
niru*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/963\/2007 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 963 of 2007 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 569 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 - 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\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-18T18:12:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-18T18:12:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":2052,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-18T18:12:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 - 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\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-18T18:12:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-18T18:12:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2"},"wordCount":2052,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2","name":"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-18T18:12:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakeshkumar-vs-unknown-on-31-march-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakeshkumar vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/100600","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=100600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}