{"id":107867,"date":"2010-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-21T14:40:14","modified_gmt":"2015-10-21T09:10:14","slug":"suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR          \n\n Criminal Appeal No 949 of 2003\n\n Suruti Bai\n                                              ...Petitioners\n                             Vs\n State of Chhattisgarh\n                                              ...Respondents\n\n\n! Shri K K Singh counsel for the appellant\n\n^ Shri Sandeep Yadav Dy Govt Advocate for the State\n\n CORAM: Honble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Honble Shri R N Chandrakar J   \n\n Dated: 28\/07\/2010\n\n: Judgement \n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                  Delivered on 28 72010<\/p>\n
      Criminal Appeal under Section 374 2 of the C r P C<\/p>\n
Per  Rangnath Chandrakar, J.\n<\/p>\n
  1.    The  appellant has preferred this criminal  appeal<\/p>\n
     under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
     against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence<\/p>\n
     dated 14-2-2003 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 171 of<\/p>\n
     2002, whereby learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)<\/p>\n
     Korba, has convicted the appellant  under Section 302 of<\/p>\n
     the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of  Krishna<\/p>\n
     Kumar, a child aged about 3 – 4 years and sentenced her<\/p>\n
     to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500\/-,<\/p>\n
     in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for<\/p>\n
     three months.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The case of the prosecution, in brief, as projected
\nin the impugned judgment is that on 19-2-2002 in the
\nmorning, Vishwanath (PW\/1) along with his wife Sheet Bai
\n(PW\/15), his father Sonauram and his son Khemlal (PW\/17)
\nwent to the field of Murari Jaiswal of their village for
\nmaking bricks, leaving Manoj Kumar (PW\/16) and Krishna
\nKumar (the deceased) in the house.  After some time, Manoj
\nKumar also came there along with Krishna Kumar (deceased)
\nwhereupon Vishwanath sent back Krishna Kumar along with
\nKhemlal to the house.  Thereafter, at about 10:00 a.m.
\nKhemlal (PW\/17) brought Krishna Kumar to him in the field
\nand stated that Krishna Kumar was given some medicine to
\ndrink by the appellant as a result of which he was
\nsuffering from stomachache.  On this, Vishwanath smelt the
\nbreathing of Krishna Kumar and detected the foul smell
\ncoming from his mouth.  On asking, Krishna Kumar replied
\nthat the appellant gave him some medicine to drink.
\nThereafter, Krishna Kumar was brought to the house where
\nhe was caused to vomit and was examined by one Firatram
\nYadav (PW\/19) an employee of the Govt. Hospital of the
\nvillage, who advised to take Krishna Kumar to Govt.
\nHospital, Korba immediately.  Krishna Kumar was taken to
\nthe Govt. Hospital, Korba where he died after some time
\nduring treatment.  Dr. D.K. Shrivastava (PW\/18) sent
\nmorgue intimation (Ex.P\/15) to police out post Rampur
\nwhere morgue intimation (Ex.P\/7) was registered at zero.
\nThereafter, inquest (Ex.P\/1) was prepared over the person
\nof the deceased by A.S.I. Grahan Singh Rathore (PW\/12) and
\nsent the (Ex.P\/7) to police station, Kartala for
\nregistration of crime where morgue intimation (Ex.P\/17)
\nwas registered.  Thereafter, the S.H.O. M.P. Tondon
\n(PW\/13), police station, Kartala proceeded to village
\nChiknipali, the place of occurrence and after recording
\nthe statements of witnesses, recorded Dehati Nalisi
\n(EX.P\/10)  on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P\/11) was
\nregistered  in police station, Kartala. Postmortem of the
\ndead body of Krishna Kumar was conducted by Dr. D.K.
\nShrivastava (PW\/18), spot map was prepared by  Patwari
\nNand Kishore Singh (PW\/14) and `monochrotophos’ pesticide
\nin a plastic container  was seized vide Ex.P\/6 on being
\nproduced by Firturam (PW\/7), the husband of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The viscera preserved from the body of the deceased
\nduring postmortem was sent to FSL for chemical examination
\nand report thereof was received  (Ex.P\/18), according to
\nwhich presence of  organo phosphorous  pesticide
\nMonochrotophos was found in the viscera of the deceased .\n<\/p>\n
4.   After completing the investigation, charge sheet was
\nfiled against the appellant and after committal of the
\ncase to the Court of Sessions Judge, learned Additional
\nSessions Judge, received the case on transfer for trial.
\nLearned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under
\nSections 302 of the IPC for causing death of Krishna
\nKumar, a child aged about 3-4 years. The appellant abjured
\nher guilt.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Prosecution in order to establish the charges against
\nthe appellant examined 20 witnesses in all.  Thereafter
\nthe statement of the accused\/appellant was recorded under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which
\nshe denied the circumstances appearing against her and
\npleaded her innocence and false implication.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The trial Court after hearing counsel for the
\nrespective parties convicted and sentenced the appellant
\nas mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 7.    Krishna  Kumar’s,  a  child  death  on  account  of<\/p>\n
     poisoning has not been disputed.  From the evidence of Dr.<\/p>\n
     D.K. Shrivastava (PW\/18), who conducted post-mortem and <\/p>\n
     opined that the cause of death was shock and coma as a<\/p>\n
     result of ingestion of some poisonous material and also<\/p>\n
     from the FSL report Ex.P\/18, it is established that the<\/p>\n
     deceased died as a result of consuming poisonous substance<\/p>\n
     Monochrotophos.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
\nvehemently argued that in order to sustain conviction in
\nthe case of murder by poisoning, the prosecution is duty
\nbound to establish that the accused had a clear motive for
\nadministering poison to the deceased.  There is no
\nevidence available on record that the appellant had any
\nmotive for committing murder of the deceased.  There is no
\nevidence that the accused had poison in her possession and
\nthat she had an opportunity to administer poison to the
\ndeceased.  There is no eye-witness to the incident and the
\nsole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the
\nprosecution has utterly failed to connect the chain of the
\ncircumstances and there are so many contradictions,
\nomissions and improvements in the statements of the
\nprosecution witnesses.  Therefore, the conviction and
\nsentence is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
9.   On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Government
\nAdvocate, appearing on behalf of the State supported the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 10.   We  have heard learned counsel for the parties  and<\/p>\n
     perused the record of the trial court as well as  the<\/p>\n
     impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad
\nBirdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> {(1984) 4 SCC
\n116} while considering murder by poison or suicide has
\nheld in paragraph 165 of the judgment thus.\n<\/p>\n
        “So  far  as  this matter is concerned,  in
\n        such  cases  the court must carefully  scan
\n        the   evidence  and  determine   the   four
\n        important  circumstances  which  alone  can
\n        justify a conviction:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (i)  there is a clear motive for an accused to administer
\n            poison to the deceased;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ii) that the deceased died of poison said to have been
\nadministered;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)     that the accused had the poison  in his
\npossession;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison
\nto the deceased.”\n<\/p>\n
 12.  This court in the matter of Krishna Vs. State of C.G.\n<\/p>\n
     {(2008 (1) CGLJ 107 (DB) } following the above judgment of<\/p>\n
     the Supreme Court, considering that the motive was not<\/p>\n
     proved  for administering poison and also considering<\/p>\n
     material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution<\/p>\n
     witnesses and the manner adopted in administering poison,<\/p>\n
     had acquitted the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
13.  There is no eye-witness to the incident and the case
\nrests upon the circumstantial evidence, therefore, we
\npropose to examine the oral evidence adduced by the
\nprosecution in the light principles of law laid down by
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter  of Sharad
\nBirdhichand  Sarda (supra) to ascertain whether in the
\npresent case the four important circumstances have been
\nestablished or not.\n<\/p>\n
                  Whether there is a clear motive for  the
\n     accused to
\n                 administer poison to the deceased?\n<\/p>\n
 14.   The  trial Court  neither considered nor  discussed<\/p>\n
     about this important circumstance in its judgment  and<\/p>\n
     drawn  adverse inference  in para  22 of the impugned<\/p>\n
     judgment  on the basis of the defence  taken  by  the<\/p>\n
     appellant that she was falsely implicated  because of the<\/p>\n
     illicit relation between her husband the mother of the<\/p>\n
     deceased.  The Trial Court wrongly held that the illicit<\/p>\n
     relation between the husband of the appellant and the<\/p>\n
     mother of the deceased was the motive to cause death of<\/p>\n
     the  deceased by the appellant. From the evidence  of<\/p>\n
     Firturam (PW\/7),husband of the appellant and Sheet Bai<\/p>\n
     (PW\/15), mother of the deceased,  it is clear that both of<\/p>\n
     them denied the illicit relation between them and  for the<\/p>\n
     sake of argument,  if it is accepted then also the motive<\/p>\n
     is not proved because  by causing death of the deceased<\/p>\n
     the  appellant  gets nothing and her problem  remains<\/p>\n
     unsolved.   It is pertinent to mention here that  the<\/p>\n
     appellant did not have any grudge against the deceased but<\/p>\n
     she was having grudge with her husband Firturam and Sheet<\/p>\n
     Bai, the mother of the deceased.  Thus, the inference<\/p>\n
     drawn by the trial court is unsustainable and declined<\/p>\n
     holding that the prosecution failed to establish the most<\/p>\n
     important circumstance against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
15.  So far as the second circumstance is concerned,  it
\nis clear from the  deposition of Dr. D.K. Shrivastava
\n(PW\/18) and FSL report (Ex.P\/18)  that the deceased died
\ndue to consumption of  Organo-Phosporous pesticide
\nMonochrotophos as we have already discussed  in foregoing
\nparagraphs.\n<\/p>\n
16.  Now coming the third circumstance, whether the
\naccused appellant was in possession of the alleged poison
\nat the time of incident?  It is clear from the evidence
\navailable on record that the alleged poison was seized in
\nthe Police Station being produced by   Firturam (PW\/7),
\nwho deposed that on the date of incident he was not
\npresent in his house and had gone to Shakti market from
\nwhere he returned after two days.  He had concealed the
\nalleged poison seized vide Ex.P\/6 in his house so that no
\nbody could consume it.   In his cross-examination in para
\n10 he admitted that the seized poison was brought out from
\nthe place where it was kept by him.  The other witnesses
\nof seizure are Amar Prasad (PW\/9) and Hariram (PW\/10), the
\nvillage Kotwar.  Amar Prasad (PW\/9) deposed that he did
\nnot know from where the seized poison was brought by
\nFirturam as he had not gone  with him to his house.
\nHariram (PW\/10) stated in his cross examination  that the
\nseized poison  was neither discovered by the Police nor
\nby him  and Amar Prasad from the house of Firturam but the
\nsame was  brought out by Firturam himself.   Both the
\nseizure witnesses also stated that they signed the seizure
\nmemo (Ex.P\/6) in Police Station and leaving it in the same
\ncondition in which it was brought to the police station
\nwent to their house.  They did not know what was done with
\nthe seized container of poison by the police after seizing
\nthe same.  Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is clear
\nthat the alleged poison was not seized on the basis of
\nmemorandum of accused\/appellant from her possession.   It
\nis also clear that the seized poison was not sealed before
\nthe witnesses and on scanning the evidence of Firturam
\n(PW\/6) it is nowhere found that the seized poison was
\nwithin the knowledge of the appellant. Thus, the
\nprosecution failed to prove that the appellant was in
\nexclusive possession of the alleged poison.\n<\/p>\n
17.  So far as fourth circumstance that whether the
\naccused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the
\ndeceased is concerned, there were two witnesses to this
\nfact namely Khemlal (PW\/17) and  Prakash (PW\/5).  Prakash
\n(PW\/5) was discharged without examination, as he was not
\nfound competent for recording his evidence by the trial
\ncourt.   Now, the entire prosecution story rests upon the
\nevidence of Khemlal (PW\/17), the elder brother of the
\ndeceased. He deposed that on the date of incident he along
\nwith his parents, elder brother Manoj Kumar and deceased
\nwent for making bricks. At about 10.00 a.m., he   brought
\nKrishna Kumar (deceased) to the house and started
\ncollecting clothes and soap for going to bath, as he had
\nto go to school.  At that time, the deceased was playing
\nalong with Prakash (PW\/5) in the street where the
\nappellant came and took them to her house.  He inquired
\nfrom the appellant about the deceased as to whether he was
\nin her house, the appellant replied in negative.
\nThereafter, when he returned to his house after taking
\nbath from hand pump, the appellant brought out the
\ndeceased from her house after giving him some medicine to
\ndrink and went towards her kitchen garden with an axe.
\nThe deceased was weeping and on query that who beat him,
\nhe replied that the appellant made him to drink some
\nmedicine.  Thereafter, he took the deceased to his parents
\nand asked his father to smell the mouth of the deceased
\nwhereupon his father smelt the breathing of the deceased
\nand asked him then the deceased replied that the appellant
\nmade him to drink some medicine.  His mother took the
\ndeceased to the house at that time he was to become
\nunconscious.    The village doctor Yadav was called who
\nadvised to take the deceased to Korba whereupon his father
\ntook the deceased to Korba where he died.   In the cross
\nexamination, he admitted that he neither saw the deceased
\ndrinking anything nor was made to drink anything by
\nanybody.  Apart from this, there are so many
\ncontradictions, omissions and improvements in his
\nstatement as pointed out by the defence.\n<\/p>\n
18.  Vishwanath (PW\/1) and Sheet Bai (PW\/15) are the
\nparents of the deceased.  Both the witnesses deposed that
\nKhemlal (PW\/17) brought the deceased to them and they
\nsmelt the foul smell of medicine (poison) coming from the
\nmouth of the deceased.  Khemlal narrated them about
\nadministering poison to the deceased by the appellant.
\nBoth of them made contradictory statement before the
\ncourt.   On the one hand,  they made the statement that
\nwhen the deceased was brought to them  the deceased told
\nthem that he was given some medicine to drink by the
\nappellant whereas Vishwanath in para 7 categorically
\nstated that when the deceased was brought to him,  he was
\nin unconscious condition and  same statement was made by
\nSheet Bai in para 12 of her cross examination.   In view
\nof the aforesaid contradictions in their statements, it
\ncannot be held that when  the deceased was brought to his
\nparents, he was in a condition to narrate the incident.
\nVishwanath also admitted in para 9 that there was no
\nprevious enmity with the appellant. Apart from the above,
\napparently, there are material contradictions, omissions
\nand improvements in their statements as pointed out by the
\ndefence.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In view of the aforesaid analysis, we  find  that
\nthere  is no  eye-witness to the incident and Prakash
\n(PW\/5)  who was said to have been  along with the deceased
\nat the time of incident was discharged without examination
\nbeing found incompetent for recording his evidence by the
\ntrial court. The other witnesses examined by the
\nprosecution are not material witnesses being hearsay
\nwitnesses.   The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon
\nthe testimonies of Khemlal (PW\/17), Vishwanath (PW\/1) and
\nSheet Bai (PW\/15) who were not the eye-witnesses and there
\nare material contradictions, omissions and improvements in
\ntheir statements. In such condition, their statements
\ncannot be held reliable. Further, the alleged poison was
\nneither found nor seized from the exclusive possession of
\nthe appellant and there is no evidence on record that
\nafter seizure the same was sealed in presence of the
\nwitnesses. It is also evident that there was no motive for
\nthe appellant to cause death of the deceased. Thus, the
\nprosecution also failed to prove the circumstance that it
\nwas  only the accused\/appellant  who had an opportunity to
\nadminister poison to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
20.  For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that
\nthe prosecution has failed to establish the case against
\nthe appellant beyond all reasonable doubt as the chain of
\ncircumstantial evidence has not been proved  to fasten the
\nguilt on the accused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
21.   Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby
\nallowed. The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the
\ntrial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of
\nthe IPC, is set aside.  The appellant is in jail.  She be
\nset at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No 949 of 2003 Suruti Bai …Petitioners Vs State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents ! Shri K K Singh counsel for the appellant ^ Shri Sandeep Yadav Dy Govt Advocate for the State CORAM: Honble Shri […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSuruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-21T09:10:14+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T09:10:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2584,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T09:10:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-21T09:10:14+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T09:10:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010"},"wordCount":2584,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010","name":"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T09:10:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suruti-bai-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suruti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/107867","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=107867"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107867\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}