{"id":107930,"date":"1992-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992"},"modified":"2018-12-25T21:37:10","modified_gmt":"2018-12-25T16:07:10","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 840, \t\t 1992 SCR (1)\t 37<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/01\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  840\t\t  1992 SCR  (1)\t 37\n 1992 SCC  (2)\t86\t  JT 1992 (1)\t340\n 1992 SCALE  (1)149\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian   Penal  Code,  1860  :  Sections  302  and\t  34\n(Occurrence prior to insertion of Section 304-B).\n     Dowry  death-accused-Husband,  his father\tand  sister-\nConviction by Trial Court-Re-evaluation and  Re-appreciation\nof  evidence by the High Court-Reversal of conviction  order\nand  acquittal\tof accused by High Court-Held  High  Court's\norder resulted in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be\nset aside.\n     Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Scope of\n     Murder-Covinction by Trial Court-On appeal acquittal by\nHigh  Court-Appeal against acquittal order-Power of  Supreme\nCourt  to appreciate evidence and interfere  with  acquittal\norder-Held Supreme Court can interfere with acquittal  order\nif  High  Court's  order  has  resulted\t in  miscarriage  of\njustice.\n     Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 3.\n     Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation and evaluation of-\nCourt  must adopt a cautious approach-Conviction  should  be\nrecorded  only\tif all the links in the\t chain\tof  evidence\nfully  establish the hypothesis of guilt of the\t accused-But\nprosecution  is not bound to meet any and  every  hypothesis\nput  forward by accused however far-fetched and fanciful  it\nmight be.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Respondent,  A  was married to M, daughter of  PW2,  at\nBanaras on 13th May, 1973.  Subsequent to their marriage  A,\nwho  was serving as Assistant Engineer, was  transferred  to\nLucknow where he hired a two room first floor apartment\t for\nhis residence. The ground floor of the house was occupied by\nthe sons of the landlord, PWs 1 and 4.\tIt was alleged\tthat\nA,  his\t father\t and  sister were  not\tsatisfied  with\t the\nsufficiency  of the dowry and therefore all the\t three\twere\ntaunting,  tormenting and torturing M. During one  of  their\nvisits\tto  Banaras  the question of dowry  was\t once  again\nraised when A'S father and sister misbehaved with M\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  38\nand  her father and stated that they won't allow M  to\tlive\nwith A unless dowry was made good.  When there was a  heated\nargument,  A returned to Lucknow without M. M entreated\t her\nfather-in  law\tto permit her to join A at Lucknow  but\t the\nlatter\trefused saying that she will have to rot at  Banaras\nalone  unless the dowry amount was made good.  Ignoring\t her\nfather-in  law's  refusal  M went to  Lucknow  to  join\t her\nhusband.   On coming to know that M had gone to Lucknow\t A's\nfather and sister followed her to Lucknow and all the  three\nquarrelled and\tbeat M. On that very  night  they  sprinkled\nkerosene on M and set her ablaze.  Thereafter, all the three\naccused\t came  out  of the room\t shouting  `fire-fire'.\t  On\nhearing\t the shouts PWs 1 and 4 came out of their house\t and\nsaw  that while M was in flames all the three  accused\twere\nstanding  in  the verandah talking to each  other  and\twere\nunconcerned  about  her\t plight. None of  accused  made\t any\neffort\tto  extinguish the flames or to rescue\ther.   PW  1\ncalled\tthe fire brigade and PW 3, a fireman, took M to\t the\nhospital where she was declared dead.  On coming to know  of\nthe incident, PW 2, father lodged the FIR and all the  three\naccused were prosecuted for murder.\n     Relying  upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and  other\ncircumstances  of  the\tcase the Trial\tCourt  came  to\t the\nconclusion that the charge against all the three accused was\nmade   out   by\t  prosecution\tbeyond\t reasonable   doubt.\nAccordingly  the Trial Court convicted them  under  sections\n302\/34 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for  life.\nThe Trial Court also rejected the theory of accidental death\nof M.\n     The  accused preferred an appeal before the High  Court\nwhich  on re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the  evidence\nagreed with the Trial Court that the presence of PWs 1 and 4\non  the\t scene of occurrence was probable  and\tnatural\t but\nsuspected    the   trustworthiness   of\t  their\t   evidence.\nAccordingly,  it  allowed  the\tappeal\tand  set  aside\t the\nconviction  order  by  holding that  the  evidence  did\t not\ndisclose  the  involvement of the accused and  that  in\t all\nprobability the deceased M committed suicide.\n      The  state  preferred  an\t appeal\t before\t this  Court\nchallenging the High Court's decision.\n     Allowing the appeal, this Court,\n     HELD  : 1. While appreciating  circumstantial  evidence\nthe  court  must adopt a very cautious approach\t and  should\nrecord\ta conviction only if all the links in the chain\t are\ncomplete pointing to the guilt of the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  39\naccused\t and  every hypothesis of innocence  is\t capable  of\nbeing  negatived on evidence.  Great care must be  taken  in\nevaluating  circumstantial  evidence  and  if  the  evidence\nrelied\ton is reasonably capable of two inferences, the\t one\nin favour of the accused must be accepted.  The circumstance\nrelied upon must be found to have been fully established and\nthe  cumulative effect of all the facts so established\tmust\nbe  consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.  But\tthis\nis  not to say that the prosecution must meet any and  every\nhypothesis  put forward by the accused\thowever\t far-fetched\nand fanciful it might be.  Not does it mean that prosecution\nevidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the\nlaw  permits  rejection if the doubt is reasonable  and\t not\notherwise. [46D-E]\n     2.\t The  presumption  of innocence of  the\t accused  is\nstrengthened, certainly not weakened, by their acquittal and\nordinarily this Court is slow to interfere with an order  of\nacquittal  in  exercise of its\textraordinary  powers  under\nArticle 136 of the Constitution, but in the instant case the\napproach of the High court has resulted in gross miscarriage\nof justice.  Therefore it is not possible for this Court  to\nrefuse to interfere when a gruesome crime is committed which\nhas resulted in the extinction of a young mother to be. [46-\nF, 48-D]\n     3.\t The approach of the High Court was  wholly  against\nthe  weight of evidence.  Since PWs 1 and 4  were  occupying\nthe  ground  floor  of the building of which A\tand  M\twere\noccupying  the\tfirst floor their presence at  the  time  of\noccurrence cannot be doubted. They had no reason to  falsely\nimplicate the accused persons and have disclosed vital facts\nsuch  as the arrival of accused-husband's father and  sister\nhot  on the heels of the return of deceased M from  Banaras,\nquarrels  and beating which had taken place in the past\t and\nimmediately before the incident between the accused  persons\non the one hand and the deceased M on the other, and all the\nthree accused having come out shouting `fire fire' when\t the\ndeceased  was afire and none of the accused having  gone  to\nher rescue.  The conduct of the three accused persons in not\ntrying to save deceased M and in showing total\tindifference\nto her fate speaks volumes of their culpability.  [48-C, 44-\nB, 47-C, 44-G-H, 46-A]\n     3.1  All  the  circumstances of  the  case\t when  taken\ntogether  leave\t no room for doubt that\t the  three  accused\npersons were the joint authors of the crime. Accordingly the\norder of acquittal passed by the High Court is set aside and\nthe  order  of conviction and sentence passed by  the  Trial\nCourt is restored. [48-C, E]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  40\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal\t No.
\n464 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment  and Order dated  8.3.1978  of\t the
\nAllahabad High\tCourt in Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     Shiv Pujan Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellants.
\n     R.K. Garg and Anil K. Gupta for the Respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     AHMADI,  J. Meera Srivastava, a young woman aged  about
\n25 years.  died of burns on the night between 20th and\t21st
\nJuly,  1974 at about 2.30 a.m. in the two room apartment  of
\nher husband Ashok Kumar Srivastava, original accused No. 1.
\nThe  marriage had taken place less than a year ago on  13th
\nMay,  1973 at Banaras.\tBoth the family of the deceased\t and
\nthe family of the husband hail from Banaras but after  their
\nwedding\t Ashok who was serving as an Assistant Engineer\t was
\ntransferred  to Lucknow where he had hired a two room  first
\nfloor  apartment  for his residence.  The ground  floor\t was
\noccupied by the landlord.  The first Information Report\t was
\nlodged\tby PW 2 J.P. Shrivastava, father of the\t unfortunate
\nwoman, after he rushed by taxi to Lucknow on learning  about
\nthe  incident.\tThe offence of murder was registered and  in
\nthe course of investigation statements of PW 1 Prabhat Kumar
\nand  PW\t 4  Rajendra Prasad, both brothers  residing  on the
\nground\tfloor  came  to be recorded.   Statements  of  other
\nwitnesses including PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra, a fire brigade man,
\nand PW 5 S.K. Srivastava, brother of the deceased, were also
\nrecorded.  On a consideration of the evidence of PWs 1 to  5
\nas well as the evidence of PW 9 Dr R.K. Aggarwal, the  Trial
\nCourt,\tbearing in mind other circumstances pointed  out  in
\nthe judgment, came to the conclusion that the charge against
\nthe three accused was brought home by the prosecution beyond
\nreasonable  doubt.   On\t that  conclusion  the\tTrial  Court
\nconvicted  all\tthe  three  accused  persons  under  Section
\n302\/34,\t I.P.C., and sentenced each of them to\timprisonment
\nfor life.  Feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and
\nsentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions  Judge,
\nLucknow,  the  three accused persons  preferred\t an  appeal,
\nbeing Criminal Appeal No. 913\/1976, to the High Court,\tThat
\nappeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which
\non  a  re-evaluation and reappreciation of  the\t prosecution
\nevidence came to the conclusion that in all probability\t the
\ndeceased  Meera committed suicide and the evidence  did\t not
\ndisclose  the involvement of the appellants\/accused  in\t the
\ncommission  of the crime.  In that view that the High  Court
\ntook, the  High Court allowed the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    41<\/span>
\nappeal,\t set  aside the order of conviction  and  order\t and
\nsentence  passed  by the Trial Court and acquitted  all\t the
\nthree appellants\/accused.  The State of U.P., not  satisfied
\nby  the judgment rendered by the High Court approached\tthis
\nCourt  under  Article 136 of the Constitution.\t This  Court
\ngranted Special Leave to Appeal and that is how the  present
\nappeal is before us.  In order to understand the prosecution
\ncase we may now state the facts in brief.\n<\/p>\n
     Meera and Ashok, both residents of Banaras, were married
\non 13th May, 1973 at Banaras.  On Ashok being transferred to
\nLucknow, they occupied a two room apartment of house  number
\n557\/17K.  Ashok and his wife were occupying the first  floor
\nwhereas\t PW 1 and PW 4, the two sons of Kedar Singh to\twhom
\nthe   house  belonged,\toccupied  the  ground  floor.\t The
\nprosecution  case  is that at the time\tof  and\t immediately
\nafter the marriage there was some bickering in regard to the
\nquantum of dowry paid by the bride’s father.  The allegation
\nis  that the father and sister of Ashok were  not  satisfied
\nwith  the  dowry  or expenditure incurred on  gifts  by\t the
\nfather\tof the deceased Meera.\tThey were of the  view\tthat
\nwhat was paid in cash as well as by way of gifts at the time
\nof `Tilak’ was short by about Rs. 4,000.  On account of this
\nfeeling\t the  three accused were taunting the  deceased\t and
\nwhen  she tried to defend her father she was  tormented\t and
\ntortured  by the accused persons.  On 13th July,  1974\tboth
\nashok and Meera had gone to Banaras.  While  they were there
\nthis question of dowry once again raised its head and it  is
\nalleged that even on that occasion the father and sister  of
\nAshok  misbehaved with Meera and her father and stated\tthat
\nthey  would  not allow Meera to live with Ashok\t unless\t Rs.
\n4,000  were paid towards dowry.\t It appears that after\tthis
\nexchange  of  heated words Ashok left for  Lucknow  on\t18th
\nJuly,  1974  leaving  Meera  behind.   Meera  was  naturally
\nperturbed.   She wanted to follow him but her  father-in-law
\ndid  not  permit  her.\tShe then went to the  house  of\t her
\nfriend\tMadhu and from there called her brother PW 5  Sushil
\nKumar  Srivastava and told him she desired to go to  Lucknow
\nas  she\t wanted\t to find out the attitude  of  her  husband.
\nDespite\t PW 5 advising her not to go to Lucknow in  view  of
\nthe threats administered by the father and sister of  Ashok,
\nshe  went to Lucknow on 20th July, 1974 to the house of\t her
\nhusband.  PW 5 left her there and returned to Banaras by the
\n2.00  p.m. by Punjab Mail.  On learning about Meera’s  visit
\nto  Lucknow  the  father and sister of Ashok  also  went  to
\nLucknow.   The prosecution case is that after  they  reached
\nLucknow all the three quarrelled and beat Meera\t during\t the
\nday  and  in the dead of night at about 2.30 or\t 2.45  a.m.,
\nthey  sprinkled\t kerosene on her and set  her  ablaze.\t The
\nhouse was occupied by Ashok, his father Rajendra Lal and his
\nsister\tSudha when the incident occurred.  According to\t the
\nprosecution  at the dead of night these three  persons\tcame
\nout of the room shouting `fire-fire’ and stood in the  front
\nverandah of the\t house\twhile  Meera
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      42<\/span>
\nwas  still in flames.  No effort whatsoever was made by\t any
\nof them to extinguish the flames or to rescue her.  PW 1 and
\nPW  4 on hearing the shouts came out of their house.   PW  1
\nran  up\t to see what had happened.  He was shocked  to\tfind
\nthat Meera was in flames and the three accused persons\twere
\nstanding  in the verandah talking to each other\t unconcerned
\nabout  the plight of the woman.\t PW 1 thereafter ran to\t the
\nnearby\tfire  brigade station and informed the\tstaff  there
\nabout  the incident. PW 4 had followed p. W. 1 upstairs.  He
\nsaw the incident  from\tplace where  he was not\t visible  to
\nthe accused persons.  He saw the accused carry Meera to\t the
\nnext room and after a while brought her back with the tongue
\nprotruding  out.  PW 1 returned with the  fire-brigade\tmen.
\nThe  fireman,  PW  3  Ram Raj Mishra,  carried\tMeera  on  a
\nstretcher  to the van and then to the Civil Hospital  Hazzat
\nGanj  but the Medical Officer there could not admit her\t for
\nwant  of a vacant bed.\tShe was therefore sent to  Balrampur
\nhospital  where\t the  doctor declared her  dead.   This,  in
\nbrief,\tis  the\t prosecution version  regarding\t the  actual
\nincident.\n<\/p>\n
     The father of the girl was informed about the  incident
\nand  as no train was immediately available, he hired a\ttaxi
\nand  came  to  Lucknow.\t He went straight to  the  place  of
\noccurrence.   Since he was a stranger he talked\t to  certain
\npersons,  including  PW 1, and thereafter lodged  his  First
\nInformation  Report, Ka-I, at about 7.00 p. m. at Alam\tBagh
\nPolice Station, Lucknow.  Prior thereto it may be  mentioned
\nthat PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra had taken the three accused persons
\nto the hospital and after they were free from there  Ashok’s
\nfather\twent  to the police station at about  6.15  p.m.  to
\nlodge  a  report about his daughter-in-law’s  death  due  to
\nburns.This  is how the report Exh. Kha-I and the F.I.R.\t Exh
\nKa-I came to be recorded.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1
\nto PW 5 and PW 9 DR. Aggarwal who undertook the post  mortem
\nexamination  to\t bring\thome the  guilt\t against  the  three
\naccused.   On  the  basis  of  their  evidence\tand  the  21
\ncircumstances  enumerated  by  the learned  Trial  Judge,  a
\nconviction under  Section 302\/34, I.P.C. was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Trial\t Court came to the  conclusion\tthat  having
\nregard\tto  the\t time at which\tthe  incident  occurred\t the
\npresence of PW 1 and PW 4 at the place of occurrence is\t not
\nonly  probable\tbut also natural.  He did  not\tdoubt  their
\ntestimony when they deposed that they saw the three  accused
\npersons\t standing  in the verandah chit-chatting  with\teach
\nother  totally indifferent to the plight of Meera who was an
\nfire.\tIt  also accepted the testimony of PW  4  that\twhen
\nMeera was dragged to the smaller room her tongue was  inside
\nthe  mouth,  but when she was brought back, her\t tongue\t was
\nprotruding  out, thereby suggesting that the  three  accused
\npersons made sure her life was
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  43<\/span>
\nextinct\t  by   strangulating   her.    This   inference\t  is
\ncorroborated  by medical evidence.  It also found  that\t the
\nevidence of PW 3 corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 to
\nsome  extent.\tIt held that the F.I.R. was  lodged  without
\ndelay  and since PW 2 was a total stranger, the\t absence  of
\nnames  of  witnesses cannot weaken it.\tThe motive  for\t the
\ncrime  was  dowry.  This  fact was  found  proved  from\t the
\nevidence  of  PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5.  The fact  that  Meera\t was
\ncarrying twins in her womb since six months is proved beyond
\ndoubt.\t The  theory of accidental death had to\t be  brushed
\naside  in view of the presence of kerosene on the  scalp  of
\nthe deceased.  Of the two remaining possibilities, the Trial
\nCourt  came  to the conclusion that the evidence  placed  on
\nrecord\tproved beyond doubt that death was homicidal as\t (i)
\nher  tongue  was protruding out (ii) there was\tpresence  of
\nkerosene  and (iii) her stomach was empty.  In this view  of
\nthe  evidence,\tthe  learned  Trial  Judge  relying  on\t the
\nevidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and the 21 circumstances set\t out
\nin  the judgment came to the conclusion that the  cumulative
\neffect\tof the evidence led one to the only conclusion\tthat
\nthe  accused  persons had done Meera to\t death.\t  Particular
\nemphasis  was  laid on the unnatural conduct  of  the  three
\naccused\t persons.  The fact that accused Rajinder and  Sudha
\nfollowed  Meera to Lucknow and yet they tried to tell a\t lie
\non this point betrayed a guilty conscience.  The absence  of
\nan  `angithi’ in the kitchen, the protruding of\t the  tongue
\nand  the  absconding of the accused  immediately  after\t the
\nincident supplied links to the prosecution version regarding
\nthe  incident.\tOn the basis of this evidence,\tthe  learned
\ntrial  Judge  convicted\t all the three\taccused\t persons  of
\nmurder with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     On appeal, the High Court while agreeing with the Trial
\nCourt that the presence of PWs 1 and 4 was both probable and
\nnatural\t doubted their testimony firstly on the ground\tthat
\ntheir  names did not figure in the F.I.R. filed\t by  Meera’s
\nfather even though they had spoken to him about the incident
\nbefore\the  lodged the F.I.R. The High Court  observes\tthat
\nthis meant that both the witnesses did not disclose anything
\nincriminating the accused persons, for otherwise such  facts
\nwould  have found a mention in the F.I.R.  On the  basis  of
\nthis  inference drawn by the High Court\t on account  of\t the
\nabsence of their names in the F.I.R. the High Court came  to
\nthe  conclusion that PWs 1 and 4 had falsely implicated\t the
\naccused\t persons  at the behest of Meera’s  father  and\t his
\nacquaintances  and  hence  their  evidence  was\t not  beyond
\nsuspicion.   The High Court points out the PW 1 hailed\tfrom
\nQadirabad of Banaras District which village was adjacent  to
\nvillage\t Ghauspur where the complainant’s niece was  married
\nto  one Bansidhar who happened to be a friend of the  family
\nof  PWs 1 and 4.  One Inspector, Vijay Pratap Singh,  posted
\nat  Lucknow was a `pattidar’ of that family and through\t him
\nMeera’s father had approached the investigating Officer\t who
\nin turn succeeded in
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  44<\/span>
\npersuading PWs 1 and 4 testify against the accused  persons.
\nOnce  the High Court suspected the trustworthiness of PWs  1
\nand 4 it brushed aside the various circumstances pointed out
\nin the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the accused
\npersons.  The question is whether this approach of the\tHigh
\nCourt can be sustained?\n<\/p>\n
     As pointed out earlier since PWs 1 and 4 were occupying
\nthe ground floor of the building of which Ashok and his wife
\nwere  occupying the first floor, their presence at the\ttime
\nof  occurrence\tcannot\tbe doubted.  Nor  have\tthe  accused
\ndenied\ttheir presence in their statements.  Even  according
\nto  the\t theory put up the defence the accused\tpersons\t had
\ncome  out  shouting  `fire-fire and, therefore,\t it  is\t not
\nsurprising  that PWs 1 and 4 woke up from their sleep. PW  1
\nimmediately  rushed to the first floor to find out what\t had
\nhappened.  PW 4 followed him and placed himself at  a  point
\nfrom where he was not visible to the accused persons.\tBoth
\nthese witnesses have deposed that after Ashok and Meera came
\nto occupy the first floor there used to be frequent quarrels
\nbetween them on the question of insufficiency of dowry. Both
\nof  them have deposed that the accused used to beat her\t and
\nshe used to confide in their sister.  They also deposed that
\nthe  father  and sister of Ashok had come  to  Lucknow\tfrom
\nBanaras after Meera’s brother, PW 5, had left her at Lucknow
\nand  returned to Banaras.  The evidence of PWs 2 and 5,\t the
\nfather\tand  brother  of  Meera,  shows\t that  before  Meera
\nreturned to Lucknow there were quarrels between the  accused
\npersons\t on the one side and she and her family\t members  on
\nthe  other regarding insufficiency of dowry.  It  was  after
\nheated exchanges on this account that Ashok left for Lucknow
\non  18th July, 1974.  Meera entreated her  father-in-law  to
\nallow her to go to Lucknow but the latter refused and stated
\nthat  she would have to rot at Banaras unless the dowry\t was
\nmade  good.  Meera, therefore, went to the residence of\t her
\nfriend Madhu, and from there she sent for her brother PW  5.
\nWhen  her father-in-law returned to the house and found\t her
\nmissing\t he was annoyed and went to the house of her  father
\nand quarreled with him.\t Immediately thereafter he and Sudha
\nleft for Lucknow and during the day beat and quarreled\twith
\nMeera.\t Her husband too joined them.  The absence  of\tfood
\nmatter\tin the stomach and small intestines of\tMeera  shows
\nthat  she  did not take her dinner before she went  to\tbed.
\nUltimately  between  2.30  and\t2.45  a.m.  the\t unfortunate
\nincident took place.  PWs 1 and 4, therefore, disclose three
\nvital  facts, namely, (i) the arrival of the Ashok’s  father
\nand  sister  hot on the heels of the return  of\t Meera\tfrom
\nBanaras,  (ii) quarrels and beating took place in  the\tpast
\nand  immediately  before the incident  between\tthe  accused
\npersons\t on the one hand and Meera on the other,  and  (iii)
\nall  the  three accused came out shouting  `fire-fire’\twhen
\nMeera was afire at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m. and none went  to
\nher rescue. Counsel for the defence
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    45<\/span>
\nsubmitted  that\t Meera\thad  a\tflicker\t of  hope  that\t her
\nhusband’s  attitude  would  be different from  that  of\t her
\nfather-in-law  and sister-in-law but when she found that  he
\ntoo shared their views she was frustrated and when every one
\nwas fast asleep she poured kerosene on herself and committed
\nsuicide.   This suggestion would have found favour  with  us
\nhad  the  conduct  of the accused  persons  been  consistent
\ntherewith.   The evidence of PWs 1 and 4 clearly shows\tthat
\nafter  the  accused persons came to reside in  their   house
\nthere  were frequent quarrels with Meera and she  was  being
\nbeaten by all the three.  Even on the evening of the fateful
\nday  she was beaten and kicked by her husband and the  other
\ntwo  as she was not wanted at Lucknow.\tOn the night of\t the
\nincident all the three accused persons came out of the house
\nshouting  `fire-fire’ and stood in the verandah\t unconcerned
\nabout  Meera’a\tfate.\tThey were seen\tchit-chatting  in  a
\ncasual\tmanner, by both the witnesses.\tBesides it  must  be
\nnoticed that none of the three accused had any burn marks to
\nsuggest\t that they had tried to go to the rescue  of  Meera.
\nSince the body of Meera was lying in between the two  rooms,
\nthe possibility of Meera having Bolted one room from  inside
\nmust  be ruled out.  Search of the three accused was on\t and
\naccused Rajinder Lal and  Sudha could be apprehended on\t the
\n23rd but accused Ashok was absconding and presented  himself
\nas  late as 5th September, 1974 armed with  an\tanticipatory
\nbail  order.  He was clearly absconding and his\t explanation
\nthat he had gone to Allahabad to fetch his pay slip must  be
\nstated\tto  be rejected.  One does not absent  oneself\tfrom
\nduty  for  more than one and a half months to  fetch  a\t pay
\nslip.  A lame and false explanation of this type only adds a
\nlink  in  the prosecution chain of  events.   Similarly\t the
\nfalse explanation of the other two accused that they had not
\nfollowed Meera but had come a day before her arrival to\t see
\nan  ailing  relative  shows  their  anxiety  to\t avoid\t the
\nsituation  of having followed her for obvious  reasons.\t  No
\nmatch  box was found on the floor but it was found  securely
\nplaced on the upper 6 feet high slab.  Then the statement of
\naccused\t Rajendra Lal to the police, kha-1, that  Meera\t was
\ntaking her meals at 10.00 p.m. when he\tretired is falsified
\nby  the\t absence of food material in her stomach  and  small
\nintestines.   These  are added circumstances  on  which\t the
\nprosecution has justifiably relied.\n<\/p>\n
     Much  was tried to be made of the fact that it was\t the
\naccused\t who gave the alarm of fire and informed the  police
\nalso  which  goes to show that they did not  have  a  guilty
\nconscience.   This submission, however, overlooks  the\tfact
\nthat  the apartment was a small two room apartment and\twith
\nsmoke billowing from the clothes and the body of Meera\tthey
\nwere  virtually\t forced out of the small  room\toccupied  by
\nthem.  it is, therefore, not surprising that they flung open
\nthe door to the verandah and ran out for fresh air  shouting
\n`fire-fire’. It was impossible to keep that information from
\nthe neighbours.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  46<\/span><\/p>\n
     The  intimation  to the police was also to\t save  their
\nskin as they would have known anyhow since PW 3 had  reached
\nthe  place  of occurrence.  Therefore, the  conduct  of\t the
\nthree  accused\tpersons in not trying to save Meera  and  in
\nshowing total indifference to her fate which speaks  volumes
\nof  their culpability cannot be explained away by the  above
\nfacts.\t We,  are,  therefore,\tnot  impressed\tby  the\t two
\nsubmissions made by counsel for the accused persons.  On the
\nother hand, we find that in the background of facts  deposed
\nto  by PWs 1 and 4 and their subsequent total indifference
\nregarding  the\tMeera’s\t fate  certainly  betrays  a  guilty
\nconscience as observed by the Trial Court.  So also we\tfind
\nit difficult to accept the contention that the accused being
\nhighly\teducated  (so  was Meera) would not  commit  such  a
\ngruesome crime.\t It is unfortunate that the greed for  dowry
\nhas  been  more acute in well to do  and  educated  families
\nsince  it is only people in affluent circumstances  who\t can
\nmeet  it.  We cannot countenance such a submission  although
\nthat found favour with the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court has, time out of number, observed that while
\nappreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt  a
\nvery  cautious approach and should record a conviction\tonly
\nif  all the links in the chain are complete pointing to\t the
\nguilt  of the accused and every hypothesis of  innocence  is
\ncapable of being negatived on evidence.\t Great care must  be
\ntaken  in  evaluating  circumstantial evidence\tand  if\t the
\nevidence relied on is reasonably capable of two\t inferences,
\nthe  one  in favour of the accused must\t be  accepted.\t The
\ncircumstance  relied upon must be found to have\t been  fully
\nestablished  and the cumulative effect of all the  facts  so
\nestablished  must be consistent only with the hypothesis  of
\nguilt.\t But  this is not to say that the  prosecution\tmust
\nmeet  any  and every hypothesis put forward by\tthe  accused
\nhowever\t farfetched  and fanciful it might be. Nor  does  it
\nmean  that  prosecution\t evidence must be  rejected  on\t the
\nslightest  doubt  bacause the law permits rejection  if\t the
\ndoubt  is  reasonable  and  not\t otherwise.   We  are\talso
\nconscious  of the fact that the presumption of innocence  is
\nstrengthened, certainly not weakened, by their acquittal  by
\nthe  High  Court  and  ordinarily  this\t Court\tis  slow  to
\ninterfere  with\t an order of acquittal in  exercise  of\t its
\nextraordinary powers under Section 136 of the  Constitution.
\nHowever,  in  the  present case the facts  found  proved  as
\ndiscussed earlier are (i) the accused were unhappy about the
\ncash  and articles given by way of dowry at the time of\t the
\n`tilak’\t ceremony  (ii) the accused taunted,  tormented\t and
\ntortured  Meera\t for the insufficiency of the  dowry  amount\n<\/p>\n
(iii)a\tfew days before the incident while at Banaras  there
\nwas  a\theated argument and then Ashok returned\t to  Lucknow
\nwithout\t Meera\t(iv) Meera entreated  her  father-in-law  to
\npermit\ther to join Ashok but the latter refused saying\t she
\nwill  have to rot at Banaras alone unless the  dowry  amount
\nwas made good (v) ignoring her father-in-law’s refusal Meera
\nwent
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  47<\/span>
\nto  Lucknow  (vi)  the two accused Rajendra  Lal  and  Sudha
\nfollowed her to Lucknow (vii) while at Lucknow all the three
\nilltreated her (viii) Meera was found on fire at about\t2.30
\nor  2.45 a.m. (ix) while she was burning the  three  accused
\nwho alone were inside came out of the room and stood in\t the
\nverandah chit-chatting unconcerned about her plight (x)\t none
\nof  them tried to help Meera (xi) soon after that the  house
\nwas  locked and the accused could not be found\t(xii)  while
\nthe two accused were apprehended on the 23rd Ashok could not
\nbe  traced till he surrendered on 5th September,  1974,\t and\n<\/p>\n
(xiii) false explanation or statements were made to  explain
\naway their conduct.\n<\/p>\n
     PWs  1  and 4 had no reason to  falsely  implicate\t the
\naccused\t persons.  The suggestion that they  had  implicated
\nthem at the behest of Inspector, Vijay Pratap Singh, is\t too
\nfar-fetched to be accepted.  Even according to the  evidence
\nof PW 2, the father of Meera, he did not know them prior  to
\nthe incident.  This unfortunate father came to the scene  of
\noccurrence  after  he was informed about the  death  of\t his
\nyoung\tdaughter.   He\tnaturally  went\t to  the  place\t  of
\noccurrence,  contacted the people there and talked to PWs  1
\nand  4.\t He went back and lodged a complaint, Ext. Ka-1,  in
\nwhich he did mention the presence of the house owner  though
\nhe  did not name them this is quite natural because  he\t had
\nnot  enquired  of their names having regard to\tthe  strain,
\nstress and tension in which he was at the relevant point  of
\ntime.\tWe  are afraid the High Court was not  justified  in
\ncoming\tto the conclusion that they had been set up  at\t the
\nbehest\tof  Inspector  Vijay  Pratap  Singh  who  was  their
\npattidar.   We see no reason to disbelieve any part  of\t the
\nversion given by PWs 1 and 4 except to say that perhaps\t the
\nevidence of PW 4 that Meera’s tongue was not protruding when
\nshe  was removed to the smaller room and the same was  found
\nprotruding  when  she brought back may\tbe  an\texaggeration
\nbased\ton  medical  testimony.\t  We,  therefore,  find\t  it
\ndifficult  to  agree  with the High  Court  that  these\t two
\nwitnesses  have\t been  falsely set up  at  the\tinstance  of
\nInspector Vijay Pratap Singh to give false evidence  against
\nthe accused persons.  So far as the complainant and his\t son
\nare concerned they have not tried to exaggerate or introduce
\nfalse  material\t to  support the  prosecution  case.   Their
\ntestimony regarding the quarrels which took place on account
\nof  insufficiency  of  dowry  stands  corroborated  by\t the
\nevidence  of  PWs  1  and 4  and  can  be  accepted  without
\nhesitation.\n<\/p>\n
     The  evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is partly corroborated  by
\nPW  3. Immediately after the fire was noticed and the  smoke
\nwas seen billowing out, PW 1 ran to the nearby fire  station
\nand called the fire brigade. P.W. 3 arrived at the scene  of
\noccurrence and he too saw the three accused persons standing
\nin the verandah totally indifferent to what was happening to
\nMeera.\tHe took
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   48<\/span>
\nthe  victim Meera on a stretcher to the\t Hospital.   Counsel
\nfor  the  defence tried to contend that the  fact  that\t the
\naccused\t went to the hospital along with her  is  consistent
\nwith their innocence.\tWe are afraid we cannot accept\tthis
\nsubmission   for  the  simple  reason  that  they   had\t  no
\nalternative but to go along with the fireman since they were
\nasked  to  do  so.  It was thereafter  that  Ashok’s  father
\nlodged\tthe report Ext. Kha-1.\tAfter the F.I.R. was  lodged
\nby  Meera’s father foul play was suspected but by  then\t the
\naccused\t had left.  The investigation ultimately led to\t the
\narrest\tof  the two accused other than Ashok  on  the  23rd.
\nAshok  was still untraced and no valid explanation is to  be
\nfound  for  his absence.  He secured anticipatory  bail\t and
\nthereafter  surrendered on 5th September, 1974.\t  It  would,
\ntherefore,  appear that he had made himself scarce for\tover
\none and a half months.\tThis is a circumstance which betrays
\nguilty\tconscience.   In  addition  thereto,  a\t number\t  of
\ncircumstances have been pointed out by the Trial Judge which
\ntaken  together\t leave\tno room for  doubt  that  the  three
\naccused\t persons  were the joint authors of the\t crime.\t  We
\nhave  no  hesitation,  whatsoever, in  concluding  that\t the
\napproach of the High Court was wholly against the weight  of
\nevidence and it is impossible to approve the same.\n<\/p>\n
     ordinarily,  in  an  acquittal this Court\tis  slow  to
\ninterfere  while exercising power under Article 136  of\t the
\nConstitution but here we find that the approach of the\tHigh
\nCourt  has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.  It  is
\nnot  possible for this Court to refuse to interfere  when  a
\ngruesome  crime\t is  committed which has  reassured  in\t the
\nextinction of a young mother to be.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the  result, we allow this appeal,  set  aside\t the
\norder of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore\t the
\norder of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court.\t The
\naccused will surrender to their bail forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  49<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 840, 1992 SCR (1) 37 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/01\/1992 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K. CITATION: 1992 AIR […]<\/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-107930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 - 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\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-25T16:07:10+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-25T16:07:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\"},\"wordCount\":4445,\"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\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-25T16:07:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 - 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\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-25T16:07:10+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992","datePublished":"1992-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-25T16:07:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992"},"wordCount":4445,"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\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992","name":"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-25T16:07:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-ashok-kumar-srivastava-on-14-january-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992"}]},{"@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\/107930","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=107930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}