{"id":10587,"date":"1996-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996"},"modified":"2018-03-12T13:42:16","modified_gmt":"2018-03-12T08:12:16","slug":"jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996","title":{"rendered":"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJIVAN LAL AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/12\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     The appellants  alongwith\t10  others  were  tried\t for<br \/>\nvarious offences  including offences  under sections 148 and<br \/>\n302\/149 I.P.C.\tin respect of an occurrence dated 11th June,<br \/>\n1984 in\t which deceased\t Mohan Lal  received fatal injuries.<br \/>\nThe Trial  Court vide  Judgment of 1st June, 1985, acquitted<br \/>\ntwo  co-accused\t  but  convicted  11  for  various  offences<br \/>\nincluding offences  under sections  148 and  302\/149  I.P.C.<br \/>\nThey were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. All the 11<br \/>\nconvicts appeal\t in the\t High Court against their conviction<br \/>\nand sentence. On 9th December, 1989, a Division Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  allowed the\t appeal of  8 convicts and acquitted<br \/>\nthem by\t giving them  the benefit  of doubt.  So far  as the<br \/>\nthree appellants  herein are concerned, their conviction was<br \/>\nmaintained for\tthe offenses  under section  302\/149 I.P.C..<br \/>\nThe High Court opined that these three appellants had formed<br \/>\nan unlawful  assembly with  &#8220;other unknown persons&#8221; with the<br \/>\ncommon object  of committing  murder of Mohan Lal as alleged<br \/>\nby the\tprosecution. By\t special leave,\t the appellants have<br \/>\nfilled this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have  heard Mr.\t Keshwani, learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the\t appellants and\t Mr.  U.N.Bachawat,  learned  senior<br \/>\ncounsel\t appearing  for\t the  respondent  and  examined\t the<br \/>\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Trial\tCourt as  well as the High Court relied upon<br \/>\nthe testimony  of Swami\t P.W.8, brother\t of  Mohan  Lal\t and<br \/>\nSaraswati, P.W.9,  the mother  of the deceased. It was found<br \/>\nby the\tcourts below  that on  the fateful day of 11th June,<br \/>\n1984 at\t about 8.00 a.m., the appellants armed with guns and<br \/>\nfarsa attacked the deceased while he was proceeding with his<br \/>\nbrother Swami P.W.8 towards the betel grove. The Trial Court<br \/>\nas well\t as the\t High Court  found that\t P.W.8 and P.W.9 had<br \/>\ngiven a\t correct account  relating to  the assault and while<br \/>\nP.W.9  had   specifically  stated  that\t appellants  clearly<br \/>\ndisclosed in  the promptly  lodged F.I.R.,  Ex.P-16.  It  is<br \/>\nsettled law  that  conviction  can  be\tbased  on  the\tsole<br \/>\ntestimony  is\tfound  to  be  wholly  reliable.  Where\t the<br \/>\ntestimony of  such a  witness is  partly reliable,  prudence<br \/>\nrequired that corroboration of the testimony of that witness<br \/>\nshould be  sought for  from independent\t sources to base the<br \/>\nconviction. Indeed, P.W.9 is the mother of the deceased, She<br \/>\nis, therefore,\tan interested  witness. Prudence,  as  such,<br \/>\nrequires that we look for corroboration of her testimony. We<br \/>\nfind that  such corroboration  is amply provided for both by<br \/>\nP.W.8 and  Dr. Ramesh  Kumar P.W.10  who had  performed\t the<br \/>\nAutopsy on  the dead body. Both the Trial Court and the High<br \/>\nCourt committed no error in relying upon her testimony which<br \/>\nhas been  corroborated by  other evidence  on the  record to<br \/>\nconvict the appellants. The appreciation of evidence by both<br \/>\nthe courts below is proper and we have not been persuaded to<br \/>\ntake a\tdifferent view.\t Merely because,  10  other  persons<br \/>\nnamed by her as accused were acquitted, would not render her<br \/>\nJivan Lal  and Halkoi  fired upon the deceased, Dashrath hit<br \/>\nhim with  a farsa.  P.W.8 Swami\t has corroborated  P.W.9  by<br \/>\ndeposing that  he had  seen these  accused alongwith  others<br \/>\nvariously armed\t by the side of his brother who was lying on<br \/>\nthe ground.  The submission  of Mr. Keshwani that the courts<br \/>\nbelow committed\t an error  in relying  upon the testimony of<br \/>\nP.W.9, the  solitary eye  witness, as  according to him, she<br \/>\nwas an\tinterested witness  and since  she had implicated 10<br \/>\nother accused  also, her testimony could not be relied upon,<br \/>\ndoes not  appeal to  us. He referred to certain judgments of<br \/>\nthis Court to urge that conviction could not be based on the<br \/>\ntestimony of  sole eye\twitness, who has been disbelieved in<br \/>\nrespect of a part of the occurrence or who has been found to<br \/>\nbe otherwise interested in the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  found from\ta perusal  of the  record  that\t the<br \/>\nevidence of Saraswati P.W.9 in so far as the part attributed<br \/>\nto the appellants is concerned, is cogent and consistent and<br \/>\nis also\t corroborated by  P.W.8 as  well as  by the  medical<br \/>\nevidence. The  names  of  3  appellants\t were  also  clearly<br \/>\ndisclosed in  the promptly  lodged F.I.R.,  Ex.P-16.  It  is<br \/>\nsettled law  that  conviction  can  be\tbased  on  the\tsole<br \/>\ntestimony of an eye witness provided that testimony is found<br \/>\nto be wholly reliable. Where the testimony of such a witness<br \/>\nis partly  reliable, prudence requires that corroboration of<br \/>\nthe testimony  of that\twitness should\tbe sought  for\tfrom<br \/>\nindependent sources to base the conviction. Indeed, P.W.9 is<br \/>\nthe mother  of the deceased. She is therefore, an interested<br \/>\nwitness. Prudence,  as\tsuch,  requires\t that  we  look\t for<br \/>\ncorroboration  of   her\t testimony.   We  find\t that\tsuch<br \/>\ncorroboration is  amply provided  for both  by P.W.8 and Dr.<br \/>\nRamesh Kumar  P.W.10 who  had performed\t the Autopsy  on the<br \/>\ndead body. Both the Trial Court and the High Court committed<br \/>\nno error  in relying  upon  her\t testimony  which  has\tbeen<br \/>\ncorroborated by\t other evidence on the record to convict the<br \/>\nappellants. The\t appreciation of evidence by both the courts<br \/>\nbelow is  proper and  we have  not been\t persuaded to take a<br \/>\ndifferent view.\t Merely because,  10 other  persons named by<br \/>\nher  as\t  accused  were\t acquitted,  would  not\t render\t her<br \/>\ntestimony as  wholly suspect because falsus in uno falsus in<br \/>\nomnibus is  not rule  of law  accepted by the courts in this<br \/>\ncountry. That  apart, we find that the High Court has opined<br \/>\nthat since  the testimony of P.W.9 had not been supported by<br \/>\nthe medical evidence in so far as the injuries attributed to<br \/>\nthe other 10 accused is concerned, therefore, the benefit of<br \/>\ndoubt was  required to\tbe  given  to  them  and  they\twere<br \/>\nacquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the appellants then submitted that<br \/>\nthe conviction\tof the\tappellants by  the courts  below for<br \/>\noffences under\tsections 148  and 302\/149  I.P.C, cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained. Indeed,  according to  the positive\tcase of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution,  all   the\t 13   arraigned\t accused   were\t the<br \/>\nmiscreants. With  the acquittal\t of 10\tof them\t (two by the<br \/>\nTrial Court  and eight by the High Court), the conviction of<br \/>\nthe remaining three under sections 148 and 302\/149 I.P.C. is<br \/>\nnot permissible\t as the\t assembly of three only would not be<br \/>\nan unlawful  assembly within  the  meaning  of\tsection\t 141<br \/>\nI.P.C. The  opinion of\tthe  High  Court  that\tthese  three<br \/>\nappellants formed  an unlawful\tassembly  with\tsome  &#8220;other<br \/>\nunknown persons&#8221;,  is based  on no evidence as it is not the<br \/>\nprosecution case  that besides\tthe 13\tnamed persons, there<br \/>\nwas any\t other &#8216;unknown&#8217;  person also  who  had\t shared\t the<br \/>\ncommon object  with the appellants for committing the murder<br \/>\nof Mohan  Lal. The  High Court\twas, therefore,\t not legally<br \/>\njustified in  convicting the  appellants under\tsections 148<br \/>\nand 302\/149 I.P.C. However, we find that the manner in which<br \/>\nthe  incident\ttook  place   clearly  indicates   that\t the<br \/>\nappellants had shared the common intention of committing the<br \/>\nmurder of  Mohan Lal. They would therefore be liable for the<br \/>\nsaid murder  with the aid of section 34 I.P.C. We may notice<br \/>\nhere that  these three\tappellants are the ones who had been<br \/>\nspecifically named  by P.W.9   to  have, assaulted  deceased<br \/>\nMohan Lal.  All the  three were together at the scene of the<br \/>\ncrime as  deposed to  by P.W.8\talso. The  evidence of P.W.9<br \/>\nthat Jivan  Lal and Halkoi had fired upon the deceased while<br \/>\nDashrath had  caused an injury on him with a farsa, has been<br \/>\nfound established from the medical evidence of P.W.10. Thus,<br \/>\nthere is  no manner  of doubt  that the three appellants did<br \/>\nshare the  common intention  of committing  murder of  Mohan<br \/>\nlal. The appellants alongwith others as already noticed, had<br \/>\nbeen charred  the said\tmurder of  sharing the common object<br \/>\nwith the  aid of  section 149  I.P.C. No  prejudice has been<br \/>\nshown to have been accused to the appellants for not framing<br \/>\na distinct  charge with\t the aid  of section  34  I.P.C,  as<br \/>\nintention which\t is a  question of  fact, has to be gathered<br \/>\nfrom the  evidence and\tthe evidence  on the record&#8217; clearly<br \/>\nestablishes  that   the\t appellants  did  share\t the  common<br \/>\nintention of  committing the  murder of Mohan Lal. In Dhanna<br \/>\netc. vs.  State of  Madhya Pradesh  ( JT  1996(6)  SC  652),<br \/>\nThomas, J  speaking for\t the bench,  while  dealing  with  a<br \/>\nsimilar aspect,\t after referring  to a catena of authorities<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;legal position  on this  aspect remained uncertain for<br \/>\ntime after this court rendered a decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/653650\/\">Nanak Chand vs.<br \/>\nThe State  of Punjab,<\/a>  1988 (1)\t SCR 1201. But the doubt was<br \/>\ncleared by  a constitution  bench of  this Court  in  Willie<br \/>\nSlaney vs.  State of M.P., air 1956 SC 116, where this Court<br \/>\nobserved at para 86, thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Sections 34,  114 and  149 of  the Indian\t Penal\tCode<br \/>\nprovide for  criminal liability viewed from different angles<br \/>\nas regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated<br \/>\nby a  common object or a common intention; and the charge is<br \/>\na rolled-up  one  involving  he\t direct\t liability  and\t the<br \/>\nconstructive liability\twithout specifying  who are directly<br \/>\nliable and who are sought to be made constructively liable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In such  a situation, the absence of a charge under one<br \/>\nor other  of the various heads of criminal liability for the<br \/>\noffence cannot\tbe said\t to be fatal by itself, and before a<br \/>\nconviction for the substantive offence, without a charge can<br \/>\nbe set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. In most of<br \/>\nthe cases  of this kind, evidence is normally given from the<br \/>\noutset as to who was primarily responsible for the act which<br \/>\nbrought about  the offence  and such  evidence is  of course<br \/>\nrelevant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  therefore, open to the court to take recourse to<br \/>\nsection\t 34   I.P.C.  even  if\tthe  said  section  was\t not<br \/>\nspecifically mentioned in the charge and instead section 149<br \/>\nI.P.C. has  been included.  Of course  a  finding  that\t the<br \/>\nassailant concerned  had a  common intention  with the other<br \/>\naccused necessary  for resorting to such a course. This view<br \/>\nwas followed  by this  court in\t later decisions  also.(Amar<br \/>\nSingh vs.  State of  Haryana, AIR  1973 SC 2221, Bhoor Singh<br \/>\nand Anr.  vs. State  of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256). The first<br \/>\nsubmission of  the learned  counsel for the appellant has no<br \/>\nmerit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The view  expressed above\tlends support  to  the\tview<br \/>\ntaken by  us. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the<br \/>\nappellants is  altered from  under section 302\/149 I.P.C. to<br \/>\nthe one\t under section\t302\/34 I.P.C.  while maintaining the<br \/>\nsentence of  life imprisonment.\t The conviction and sentence<br \/>\nof the\tappellants for\tthe offence  under section  146\t IPC<br \/>\nhowever\t set   aside,  but  in\tall  other  respects,  their<br \/>\nconviction and\tsentence is  maintained. As  a result of the<br \/>\nabove discussion, except for the alteration made above, this<br \/>\nappeal fails and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants  are on  bail. Their  bail\tbonds  shall<br \/>\nstand cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to undergo<br \/>\nthe remaining part of the sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: JIVAN LAL AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/12\/1996 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R The appellants alongwith 10 others [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-12T08:12:16+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-12T08:12:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1843,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\",\"name\":\"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-12T08:12:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-12T08:12:16+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996","datePublished":"1996-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-12T08:12:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996"},"wordCount":1843,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996","name":"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-12T08:12:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jivan-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-december-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jivan Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 1996"}]},{"@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\/10587","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=10587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}