{"id":106091,"date":"1975-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975"},"modified":"2016-03-02T05:47:54","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T00:17:54","slug":"santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975","title":{"rendered":"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 654, \t\t 1975 SCR (3) 463<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSANTOSH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/02\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  654\t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 463\n 1975 SCC  (3) 727\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Penal Code Section 302\/149--Common object--Concurrent\nfindings  of  fact--Vicarious  liability of  members  of  an\nunlawful assembly.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n118  persons were prosecuted for participation in a  serious\nriot.\t5   accused  were  discharged  by   the\t  Committing\nMagistrate.   The  Additional Sessions\tJudge  acquitted  61\naccused\t and  convicted 52 under section 147  and  sentenced\nthem  to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment.  The appellant\t was\nheld guilty under section 304(1) read with 149 and sentenced\nto  5  years rigorous imprisonment,  under  section  325\/149\nsentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and under section\n323\/149 sentenced to a month's rigorous imprisonment.\nThe convicted persons and the State filed appeals before the\nHigh Court.  Tile High Court convicted 14 persons  including\nthe  appellant\tand  altered his  conviction  under  section\n304\/1\/149  into\t 302\/149  for the murder of  3\tpersons\t and\nsentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.\nThe  Learned  Counsel for the appellant\t before\t this  Court\ncontended  that\t the appellant did not\tparticipate  in\t the\nriot.\nHELD  :\t This  Court is unable\tto  disturb  the  concurrent\nfindings   of  the  two\t courts\t below\t about\t appellant's\nparticipation  in  the riot.  The High\tCourt  however,\t was\nwrong  in  holding that the common object  of  the  unlawful\nassembly   was\t necessarily  to  cause\t  death\t  of   three\nindividuals.   In  a case like the present  there  were\t two\nfactions;  one of the oppressors and the other of  the\topp-\nressed,\t and  the  intention of\t members  of  the  oppressed\nfaction\t could be initially, to demonstrate quite  lawfully.\nThe circumstances showed that the appellant's intention\t may\nhave  been confined to joining a procession for purposes  of\nprotest.   If it is doubtful that the common object  of\t the\nunlawful  assembly  was to cause death, persons\t other\tthan\nthose  who  actually committed the acts resulting  in  death\ncould  not be held vicariously liable for  murder.  [464F-G;\n564H466D]\n[The  judgment\tof  the High Court as far  as  appellant  is\nconcerned  was\tset  aside and that of\tthe  Sessions  Court\nrestored.] [446G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 22  of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the
\n30th  March,  1970  of\tthe Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nCriminal appeal No. 536 of 1966).\n<\/p>\n
P. P. Juneja for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Ram Punjwani and H. S. Parihar, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBEG, J. This is an appeal by special leave by one out of 118
\npersons\t who were prosecuted for participation in a  serious
\nriot on August 1, 1965, in village Ganiari, Tehsil Bilaspur,
\nin the State of Madhya Pradesh, as a result of which several
\npersons were attacked with sharp edged weapons and three  of
\nthem died of wounds sustained by them.\tFive accused persons
\nwere  discharged by the Committing Magistrate.\tOne  hundred
\nand thirteen persons were jointly tried for various offences
\npunishable  under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 325  and\t 323
\nIndian\tPenal Code.  Charges were also alternatively  framed
\nunder Section
\n464<\/span>
\n302\/149,  307\/149, 323\/149 and 325\/149 against all of  them.
\nAn  Additional Sessions’ Judge of Bilaspur  acquitted  sixty
\none  accused  persons And convicted fifty two  persons.\t  He
\nfound  all  the convicted persons guilty under\tSection\t 147
\nP.C. and sentenced them to two years rigorous  imprisonment.
\nWe need only mention the other convictions of the  appellant
\nbefore us.  He was held guilty under Section 304(1)\/149\t IPC
\nand sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and  under
\nSection\t 325\/149  IPC and sentenced to\ttwo  years  rigorous
\nimprisonment, and under Section 323\/149 IPC and sentenced to
\na month’s rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
On appeals by the convicted persons as well as by the  State
\nGovernment,  the High Court, while convicting only  fourteen
\npersons,  including  the appellant, altered  his  conviction
\nunder  section 304(1) \/149 IPC into three convictions  under
\nSection\t 302\/149  for  the murder of  three  persons  Badlu,
\nSantu,\tChhote\tBhurwa, but it made the\t sentences  of\tlife
\nimprisonment  concurrent for the three offences.   It  main-
\ntained\tthe  other convictions and sentences passed  by\t the
\nlearned Sessions’ Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to advance\tsome
\n,arguments  to\tassail the conviction of the  appellant\t for
\nparticipation in rioting.  But, we are not impressed by\t any
\nof the criticisms leveled against six witnesses relied\tupon
\nby the Trial Court as well as the High Court: Baliram, PW 1,
\nGanesh Rao, PW 2, Gangaram, PW 3, Bade Bhurwa, PW 4,  Kabra,
\nPW  5,\tand  Lulwa, PW 7. The unshaken\tevidence,  of  these
\nwitnesses   had\t  established\tthat   the   appellant\t had
\nparticipated  in the riot, and chased the victims, and\teven
\ninflicted some minor injuries on Baliram, PW 1. But,  beyond
\nthat, the participation of the appellant in the actual\tacts
\nof  cutting the limbs of the three persons,  who  eventually
\ndied  of  profuse  bleeding,  was  not\tdeposed\t to  by\t any
\nprosecution witness.\n<\/p>\n
Although we are unable to disturb the concurrent finding  of
\nthe  fact  by  the Trial Court and the\tHigh  Court  of\t the
\nparticipation  of  the appellant in the serious\t riot  which
\ntook  place  on\t 1-8-1965 in village Ganiari,  we  are\talso
\nunable\tto concur with the view of the High Court  that,  on
\nfacts established, the common object of the unlawful  assem-
\nbly  was  necessarily  to  cause  the  death  of  the  three
\nindividuals who, unfortunately, lost their lives as a result
\nof  the\t out-burse  of frenzy of ,an  outraged\tmob  against
\npersons\t who, according to the learned Session’\t Judge,\t had
\ngiven cause to the villagers to be seriously displeased with
\ntheir nefarious activities.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions’ Judge, while convicting the  appellant
\nunder Section 304(1), had observed
\n\t      “I am inclined to take a lenient view of these
\n\t      killings because the persons killed had become
\n\t      a nuisance to the village community and  their
\n\t      criminal\tacts knew no bounds or\trationality.
\n\t      A\t time  comes when even\tan  orderly  society
\n\t      revolts  finding\tno  relief  in\tthe  regular
\n\t      course.  Though such acts are not\t permissible
\n\t      even  in such cases and cannot  be  encouraged
\n\t      yet  due discrimination was not lost sight  of
\n\t      by
\n\t      4 65
\n\t      the assailants and severe penalty is thus\t not
\n\t      called for in the present case.’
\nWe  do\tnot consider these reasons of the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge,\twho  had  given them for  convicting  the  appellant
\ntogether  with other accused persons under Section  304\t (1)
\n\/149  IPC  and\tsentencing  them  to  five  years’  rigorous
\nimprisonment, to be at all sound or relevant in justifying a
\nconviction under Section 304(1)\/149 IPC.
\nThe  learned Sessions’ Judge had relied upon Kapur Singh  v.
\nState of Pepsu<\/a>(1), to hold that, as injuries were  inflicted
\nupon  the limbs of the three men, who died of bleeding,\t but
\ninfliction  of\tinjuries  on vital parts  of  the  body\t was
\ndeliberately avoided, an intention of anybody to murder\t was
\nnot  established.   The learned Session’s Judge\t appears  to
\nhave overlooked the various clauses of Section 300 IPC.\t  An
\nintention  to  kill  is\t not  required\tin  every  case.   A
\nknowledge  that the natural and probable consequences of  an
\nact  would  be\tdeath will suffice for\ta  conviction  under
\nSection 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  on which we entertain serious  doubts,  after
\nexamining  the nature of the case and the relevant  evidence
\non record is whether the killing of any of the three men who
\ndied  was  within the common object of the large  number  of
\npersons\t who.  took part in the riot in various\t ways  in  a
\nfairly\twide-spread  area.  It may well be  that  those\t who
\nactually  inflicted the injuries on the three men  who\tdied
\ncould  be  held liable for causing death in  a\tparticularly
\ncruel manner.  The( question, nevertheless, remains  whether
\neach  of the large number of other rioters in  the  village,
\nwho  took  part in various ways in what appeared  to  be  an
\nupsurge of resentment and hostility against a party three of
\nwhich  lost  their lives, shared the common object  to\tkill
\nthem or to do acts whose natural and probable results  would
\nbe their deaths.\n<\/p>\n
A  reference  made to Chikkarange Gowda & Ors. v.  State  of
\nMysore<\/a>(2), would show that each member of a mob need not  be
\nnecessarily  be held liable for the actions of\tevery  other
\nmember of that mob.  It may be easier, in some respects,  to
\nprove  a common object as a basis for a vicarious  liability
\nunder Section 149 IPC, than to establish a common  intention
\nwithin the meaning of Section 34 IPC.  Nevertheless, as\t was
\npointed\t out  by  this Court  in  Chikkarange  Gowda’s\tcase
\n(supra),  the principle has been well recognised, since\t the
\ndecision  in  1873  in Queen v.\t Sabed\tAli(3),\t that  every
\noffence\t which may be committed by a member of\tan  unlawful
\nassembly will not be necessarily ascribed to or\t vicariously
\nfastened  upon every other member of that assembly by  using
\nSection 149 IPC.  The likelihood of causing of death by\t the
\nnature of the actions of the members of the assembly must be
\nshown  to be within the knowledge of a member who is  to  be
\nmade vicariously liable for a death.  Such knowledge may  be
\ninferred from the nature of the actions committed by  others
\nin  an unlawful assembly which the member  held\t vicariously
\nliable\tcontinues  to associate himself with  despite  these
\nactions seen by him or known to him.\n<\/p>\n
In a case such as the one before us, in which there were two
\nfactions  in a village, one of the oppressors and the  other
\nof the oppressed,
\n(1) AIR 1956 S.C. 654.\t\t    (2) AIR 1956 S.C. 731.
\n(3)  20 Sut.  W.R. (Cr.) 5 (A).\n<\/p>\n
466<\/span><\/p>\n
smarting  under\t the pain of injuries\tinflicted  by  their
\noppressors,  the intention of a member of an assembly  could
\nbe  initially  quite lawful.  His object may not  go  beyond
\njoining\t a  procession\tfor purposes  of  protest.   We\t are
\nconvinced, on the evidence on record, that the participation
\nof  the\t appellant before us went beyond,exhibiting  a\tmere
\nintention  to  protest.\t It not only embraced  knowledge  of
\nlikelihood  of\thurt of some kind to members  of  the  party
\nattacked,  but\tit included an attack by  the  appellant  on
\nBaliram,  PW  1.  The nature of that  attack  was,  however,
\nrelatively mild.  At most, from the, concerted action of  so
\nmany men a member of the unlawful assembly, on the facts and
\ncircumstances  of  the case before us, could  be  reasonably
\nheld to be aware that grievous hurt would result.
\nAfter\texamining   all\t the  evidence\t relating   to\t the
\nparticipation of the appellant and others in the riot we are
\nleft in grave doubt whether the assembly had a common object
\nof  killing  any one at all,’ even if such  was\t really\t the
\nobject\tof any particular member or members of the  unlawful
\nassembly.  It may be that those who cut the limbs of men who
\nlost  their lives due to bleeding could reasonably  be\theld
\nliable\tfor murder.  But, it seems to be unlikely that\teach
\nmember, considering the nature of the riot and the different
\nacts of different members of the riotous assembly, had\tsuch
\nan object.  This was exactly the view adopted by this  Court
\nin Chikkarange Gowda’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
As  we\tare  doubtful whether the appellant  could  be\theld
\nguilty\tof participation in an unlawful assembly  which\t had
\nthe  common object of killing or even maiming the three\t men
\nwho lost their lives, we think that the appellant could\t not
\nbe convicted under Section 302\/149 IPC.\t We also think\tthat
\nthe learned Sessions’ Judge was in error in holding that the
\nappellant could be convicted under Section 304 (1) \/149 IPC.
\nFor  a\tconviction under Section 304(1) IPC., it has  to  be
\nshown that the case of the convicted person falls within one
\nof  the\t five Exceptions found in Section 300  IPC.   It  is
\nobvious\t that the case of the appellant does not fall  under
\nany  of\t these Exceptions.  If it is  doubtful\twhether\t the
\ncommon\tobject\tof  the\t unlawful  assembly  joined  by\t the
\nappellant was to commit any acts which were either  intended
\nto  cause death, or, from which knowledge of  likelihood  of
\ndeath  could be inferred, we think that persons\t other\tthan
\nthose  who  actually committed the acts resulting  in  death
\ncould not be held vicariously liable for murder.
\nThe  result is that we allow this appeal to the extent\tthat
\nwe set aside the convictions and sentences of the  appellant
\nunder  Section 302\/149 IPC.  We maintained  his\t convictions
\nand  sentences under Section 147, 323\/149 and  325\/149\tIPC.
\nSubject\t to the modification indicated here this, appeal  is
\ndismissed.   We, understand that the appellant\thas  already
\nundergone  imprisonment longer than the longest one  imposed
\nfor  the convictions sustained by us.  We therefore,  direct
\nthat  he be released forthwith unless wanted in\t some  other
\nconnection.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n467<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 654, 1975 SCR (3) 463 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: SANTOSH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/02\/1975 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH ALAGIRISWAMI, A. CITATION: […]<\/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-106091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSantosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 - 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\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T00:17:54+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T00:17:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1743,\"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\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\",\"name\":\"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T00:17:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 - 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\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T00:17:54+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975","datePublished":"1975-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T00:17:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975"},"wordCount":1743,"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\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975","name":"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T00:17:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-february-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975"}]},{"@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\/106091","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=106091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}