{"id":108368,"date":"2000-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000"},"modified":"2019-03-08T21:30:59","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T16:00:59","slug":"ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000","title":{"rendered":"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B.Patnaik, M.B.Shah<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nAMBIKA PRASAD AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/01\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.Patnaik, M.B.Shah\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Shah,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      These appeals are filed against the judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 21.3.1997 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing<br \/>\nCriminal  Appeals  No.45\/92,  49\/92 and 50\/92 filed  by\t the<br \/>\npresent\t appellants, which arise out of common judgment\t and<br \/>\norder  dated 24.03.1992 passed by the Addl.  Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nDelhi in Sessions Case No.508\/91.  In all six persons namely<br \/>\nAmbika\tPrasad\t(A1), Krishanpal (A2), Ram Adhar  (A3),\t Ram<br \/>\nChander\t (A4),\tShiv Raj Singh (A5) and Rajinder Singh\t(A6)<br \/>\nwere  tried  for the offences punishable under Sections\t 148<br \/>\nIPC,  341  read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149 IPC and\t 302<br \/>\nread  with 149 IPC.  Additionally, accused Ram Chander\t(A4)<br \/>\nwas  charged for the offence punishable under Section 27  of<br \/>\nthe Arms Act.  Out of them two were acquitted and appellants<br \/>\nAmbika\tPrasad,\t Krishanpal Singh, Ram Chander and  Rajinder<br \/>\nSingh  were convicted for the offences under Section  302\/34<br \/>\nIPC,  341\/34  IPC and 307\/34 IPC.  For sentence,  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  observed\t that  murder appeared\tto  be\tpre-planned.<br \/>\nAccused\t Ram Chander was a famous wrestler and for others no<br \/>\ncriminal  antecedent was brought to the notice of the Court,<br \/>\ntherefore,  it was held that it was not one of the rarest of<br \/>\nthe  rare  cases.  Hence, for the offence  punishable  under<br \/>\nSection\t  302\/34   IPC,\t they\twere  sentenced\t to   suffer<br \/>\nimprisonment  for  life and to pay a fine of Rs.100\/-.\t For<br \/>\nthe  offence punishable under Section 307 read with  Section<br \/>\n34  IPC,  the court imposed a sentence of four years  and  a<br \/>\nfine  of  Rs.100\/-  and\t for the  offence  punishable  under<br \/>\nSection\t 341  read with Section 34 IPC fine of Rs.100\/-\t was<br \/>\nimposed.    Against  that  judgment,   Ambika\tPrasad\t and<br \/>\nKrishanpal  filed Criminal Appeal No.45 of 1992, Ram Chander<br \/>\nfiled Criminal Appeal No.49 of 1992 and Rajinder Singh filed<br \/>\nCriminal  Appeal  No.50\t of 1992 before the  High  Court  of<br \/>\nDelhi.\t All  the  appeals  were  heard\t together  and\twere<br \/>\ndisposed  by a common judgment and order.  That judgment and<br \/>\norder  is  challenged  by Ambika Prasad\t and  Krishanpal  by<br \/>\nfiling\tCriminal Appeal No.1152\/97, by Ram Chander by filing<br \/>\nCriminal  Appeal No.1153\/97 and by Rajinder Singh by  filing<br \/>\nCriminal  Appeal No.1154\/97.  Since these appeals arise\t out<br \/>\nof  common  judgment  and order and from the  same  sessions<br \/>\ntrial,\tthey  are  disposed of by this common  judgment\t and<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is the prosecution version that Pratap Singh is the<br \/>\nowner  of  the\tdisputed land in village  Libaspur.   It  is<br \/>\nalleged\t that  he sold 2 bighas out of 24 bighas of land  to<br \/>\none  Mohinder  Yadav  and over this  transaction  there\t was<br \/>\ndispute\t between the vendor and the vendees, for which civil<br \/>\nsuit  was pending.  A few days before the incident, Shiv Raj<br \/>\n(acquitted  accused)  told Kishan Dei (PW10) wife of  Pratap<br \/>\nSingh  that he had purchased the plot from Shri Ram  Chander<br \/>\nand  Ram Adhar accused and that he would take possession  of<br \/>\nthe  land.   She told him that it was a disputed land.\t PW4<br \/>\nVikram\tSingh, PW5 Karan Singh and PW7 Anirudh Singh are the<br \/>\nsons  of Pratap Singh.\tDeceased Virender Singh was the\t son<br \/>\nof  elder  brother of Pratap Singh.  For the assault on\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant party and injury caused to the deceased Virender<br \/>\nSingh as well as injured witnesses, FIR was lodged by Vikram<br \/>\nSingh  (PW4) on 30.06.1982 at 12.40 p.m.  It was stated that<br \/>\nthey  were  owners  of\t24 bighas and some  biswas  of\tland<br \/>\ntowards\t East of G.T.  road by the side of village Libaspur.<br \/>\nFor the said land, there was a transaction with Saroop Nagar<br \/>\nHousing Society through Mohinder Yadav.\t It was decided that<br \/>\non the receipt of entire consideration the possession of the<br \/>\nland  would  be\t handed\t over  to  the\tvendees.   As\tsale<br \/>\nconsideration  was not paid, they were in possession of\t the<br \/>\nsaid land.  As the Society started constructing houses, they<br \/>\nfiled  suit  and obtained stay order which was in  operation<br \/>\ntill  date.   It was further stated that at about  10  a.m.,<br \/>\nwhen  Karan  Singh, Anirudh, Virender Singh  were  returning<br \/>\nafter  ploughing  the land by their tractor,  Ambika  Prasad<br \/>\nalongwith  his\tcompanion  Rajinder   Diarywala,  Ram  Adhar<br \/>\nPehalwan  and  his so called adopted  brother  (subsequently<br \/>\nidentified as Ram Chander), whose both ears were damaged and<br \/>\nwho  was  known to the informant came there by the  side  of<br \/>\nhouse  of  Ambika  Prasad alongwith 4 to  5  other  persons.<br \/>\nRajinder  was  holding a ballam (Spear), Ambika\t Prasad\t was<br \/>\nhaving a lathi, Ram Adhar was equipped with jaili (rake) and<br \/>\nhis  so-called\tadopted brother was armed with\tgun  whereas<br \/>\nother  persons\twere  holding lathis.  Ram Adhar in  a\tloud<br \/>\nvoice  gave a lalkara that nobody should be spared and their<br \/>\ndead  bodies should be laid so that there may not be quarrel<br \/>\nagain.\t At  that stage, he drove back the  tractor  towards<br \/>\nplot  of  one  person  named Dhillon  but  the\ttractor\t got<br \/>\nentrapped in a ditch.  So, all the brothers came down of the<br \/>\ntractor\t and  at that time Ram Chander wrestler\t brother  of<br \/>\nPehalwan  Ram  Adhar fired a shot from his gun, as a  result<br \/>\nVirender  Singh\t fell down and died on the  spot.   Rajinder<br \/>\ngave  a\t blow of ballam on the face of PW5 Karan Singh,\t and<br \/>\naccused Ram Adhar and Ambika Prasad assaulted Karan Singh by<br \/>\njaili  and lathi.  Anirudh PW7 was also beaten by lathi.  He<br \/>\nwas  not injured because he hid himself behind the  tractor.<br \/>\nAt  that time, wrestler fired at him but he escaped and\t ran<br \/>\naway.\tHe  raised alarm for help and on hearing the  alarm,<br \/>\nPrem Singh PW8 and Rattan Singh PW10 alongwith other persons<br \/>\narrived\t at  the spot.\tHe has further stated that with\t the<br \/>\nhelp  of these persons accused Ambika Prasad and  Krishanpal<br \/>\nwere  overpowered  and\tduring the  scuffle  they  sustained<br \/>\ninjuries.  They were apprehended on the spot while they were<br \/>\ntrying to run away after committing the crime.\tIt is stated<br \/>\nthat  assault took place at about 10.15 a.m.  and the police<br \/>\nreached\t there\tsoon  after  the  occurrence.\tTwo  injured<br \/>\nwitnesses  and two accused who were apprehended on the spot,<br \/>\nwere  taken  to\t Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi by  SI  Prithipal<br \/>\nSingh  of Police Control Room between 12.05 p.m.  and  12.10<br \/>\np.m.  Thereafter, FIR was recorded at about 12.40 p.m.<\/p>\n<p>      In  the  present\tcase, injuries\tto  the\t prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses  Karan  Singh\t and  Anirudh Singh  are  proved  by<br \/>\nexamining  PW1\tDr.  Joginder Mittal of Hindu Rao  Hospital.<br \/>\nPW2  Dr.  P.K.\tSakondia of the said hospital also  examined<br \/>\naccused\t Ambika\t Prasad and Krishanpal Singh and has  proved<br \/>\ninjuries  suffered  by\tthem.  Injuries to the\taccused\t are<br \/>\nabrasions  and\tbruises.   PW3 Dr.  L.T.   Ramani  conducted<br \/>\npostmortem  examination\t of Virender Singh on 30.06.1982  at<br \/>\nabout  3.00  p.m.  and recovered 43 pellets from  his  body.<br \/>\nAccording  to  him the injuries were caused by the fire\t arm<br \/>\nexcept\tinjury No.3 which was an abrasion.  According to the<br \/>\ndoctor,\t the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course<br \/>\nof  nature  to cause death.  In the present case, motive  is<br \/>\nthe  land  dispute  between the complainant  party  and\t the<br \/>\naccused.   The\toccurrence at the scene of offence  is\talso<br \/>\nestablished  and  is  not  disputed.   With  regard  to\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of PW4 Vikram Singh who has lodged exhaustive FIR,<br \/>\nthe  High court observed that on occasions he had gone\tback<br \/>\nfrom his initial statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C.  and in<br \/>\nthat  sense  has  turned hostile.  The Court  observed\tthat<br \/>\nreading\t his  evidence\tas a whole it appeared that  he\t was<br \/>\nunder fear from the accused and that he has stated so in the<br \/>\ncross-examination.   The  High Court further  observed\tthat<br \/>\nfear  prevails in the mind of complainant party which  could<br \/>\nbe  for the reason that accused party was stronger in  terms<br \/>\nof  money  power and muscle power.  After  appreciating\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  prosecution  in detail and  relying  upon\t the<br \/>\nevidence of injured witnesses, Karan Singh (PW5) and Anirudh<br \/>\nSingh (PW7), the High Court dismissed the appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>      At  this\tstage,\twe  would   state  that\t there\t are<br \/>\nconcurrent  findings given by both the courts below based on<br \/>\nappreciation  of evidence and unless it is pointed out\tthat<br \/>\nthe  said appreciation is unreasonable or unjustified, there<br \/>\nis no scope for interference in these appeals.\tKeeping that<br \/>\nin  mind, we would decide the appeals after considering\t the<br \/>\ncontentions raised by the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   R.K.  Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nRam  Chander  submitted\t that there was no  reason  for\t the<br \/>\ncourts\tbelow  not  to accept the plea of  alibi  set-up  by<br \/>\naccused\t Ram Chander, whose consistent stand was that he was<br \/>\ngetting\t training  for\tAsiad Games throughout\tthe  day  of<br \/>\noccurrence  in Akhara.\tHe was also not named in the  FIR.<br \/>\nHe  submitted that prosecution witness Suraj Bhan (PW20) who<br \/>\nwas  examined by the prosecution to show that appellant\t was<br \/>\nmissing\t from akhara at the time of occurrence was  declared<br \/>\nhostile and further there was no reason for not relying upon<br \/>\nthe  defence witness HC Mangat Ram (DW5).  He also submitted<br \/>\nthat evidence of PW5 Karan Singh and PW7 Anirudh Singh which<br \/>\nis  relied  upon  by  the courts below\tfor  convicting\t the<br \/>\nappellants  suffers  from many infirmities and ought not  to<br \/>\nhave been relied upon for convicting the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   D.D.Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nAmbika\tPrasad\tand Krishanpal submitted that there  was  no<br \/>\nreason\tfor  the courts below for believing the\t prosecution<br \/>\nversion\t that the complainant party had gone for cultivating<br \/>\nthe  land  which was sold by them and over which  there\t was<br \/>\nconstruction   of  50-60  houses.   It\tis  submitted\tthat<br \/>\ncomplainant  party  was\t aggressor and\tthe  accused  Ambika<br \/>\nPrasad\thad  received as many as eight injuries and some  of<br \/>\nthem  were  grievous.  He submitted that courts\t erroneously<br \/>\nrelied\tupon the prosecution version that Ambika Prasad\t and<br \/>\nKrishanpal  received  injuries while they were running\taway<br \/>\nand they were followed by the villagers who caused injuries.<br \/>\nThe  learned  counsel appearing on behalf of Rajinder  Singh<br \/>\nadopted\t the  contentions raised by the learned counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe other accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  addition to the aforesaid contentions, counsel for<br \/>\nthe   appellants   submitted  that  in\tthe   present\tcase<br \/>\nprosecution  has not examined the investigating officer\t who<br \/>\nwas  important\twitness and this has prejudiced the  defence<br \/>\nraised\tby  the\t accused.  For the  non-examination  of\t the<br \/>\ninvestigating  officer,\t learned  counsel   for\t the   State<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t he  was not aware of any reason  given\t for<br \/>\nnon-examination\t of  investigating   officer.\tHowever,  he<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t one of the accused is a police officer\t and<br \/>\nknown  wrestler and, therefore, presuming that investigation<br \/>\nis  intentionally or unintentionally faulty yet that  cannot<br \/>\nbe the ground for disbelieving the injured witnesses.  It is<br \/>\nhis  contention\t that investigating officer might  not\thave<br \/>\nstepped\t in  the witness box because Ram Chander belongs  to<br \/>\nthe  same  department and that is the reason why PW20  Suraj<br \/>\nBhan  turned  hostile and DW5 Mangat Singh has stepped\tinto<br \/>\nthe witness box to support the plea of alibi of Ram Chander.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Firstly,\twe  would  deal with the contention  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel for the accused that non-examination of the<br \/>\ninvestigating  officer has adversely affected their defence.<br \/>\nIn our view, non-examination of investigating officer in the<br \/>\npresent\t case has no bearing on appreciation of the evidence<br \/>\nof  injured eye-witnesses.  The learned Sessions Judge after<br \/>\nanalysing  the evidence of SI Kulwant Rai (PW31),  Inspector<br \/>\nSuraj  Bhan  (PW20)  observed that they resiled\t from  their<br \/>\nearlier\t recorded statements and wanted to help accused\t Ram<br \/>\nChander.   The High Court has also observed that reason\t for<br \/>\nnon-  appearance of investigating officer is not far to seek<br \/>\nand  obviously he was trying to help the accused.  The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt further stated that prosecution case cannot be allowed<br \/>\nto  suffer  at\tthe hands of the  investigating\t officer  or<br \/>\nagencies  and  investigating officer cannot be permitted  to<br \/>\nhold  the  prosecution\tto ransom by  his  deliberate  acts.<br \/>\nDealing\t with  a  case\tof negligence on  the  part  of\t the<br \/>\ninvestigating  officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v.  State<br \/>\nof  MP\t{(1995)\t 5  SCC\t 518} observed that  in\t a  case  of<br \/>\ndefective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the<br \/>\naccused\t if  the case is otherwise established\tconclusively<br \/>\nbecause\t in that event it would tantamount to be falling  in<br \/>\nthe  hands  of erring investigating officer.  Similarly,  in<br \/>\nRam  Bihari Yadav v.  State of Bihar {(1998) 4 SCC 517\tpara<br \/>\n13} this Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  such\tcases, the story of the\t prosecution  will<br \/>\nhave  to be examined dehors such omissions and\tcontaminated<br \/>\nconduct\t of  the officials otherwise the mischief which\t was<br \/>\ndeliberately  done would be perpetuated and justice would be<br \/>\ndenied\tto  the complainant party and this  would  obviously<br \/>\nshake  the  confidence\tof  the people\tnot  merely  in\t the<br \/>\nlaw-enforcing  agency  but  also in  the  administration  of<br \/>\njustice.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Further  in Paras Yadav and others v.  State of  Bihar<br \/>\n{(1999) 2 SCC 126} this Court held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>      It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or<br \/>\nbecause\t of  negligence.  Hence the prosecution evidence  is<br \/>\nrequired  to  be examined dehors such omissions to find\t out<br \/>\nwhether the said evidence is reliable or not<\/p>\n<p>      Further, it is to be borne in mind that criminal trial<br \/>\nis  meant  for doing justice to the accused, victim and\t the<br \/>\nsociety\t so  that  law and order is maintained.\t  Hence,  as<br \/>\nobserved  by this court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1811660\/\">State of UP v.  Anil Singh,\t(AIR<\/a><br \/>\n1988  SC 1998) it is necessary to remember that a Judge does<br \/>\nnot  preside  over  a criminal trial merely to see  that  no<br \/>\ninnocent man is punished.  A Judge also presides to see that<br \/>\na  guilty  man does not escape.\t One is as important as\t the<br \/>\nother.\t Both  are  public  duties which the  Judge  has  to<br \/>\nperform.   Hence, we would only state that it is unfortunate<br \/>\nstate  of affair that police officers resiled from their own<br \/>\nstatements  and deposed something contrary before the court.<br \/>\nEqually,  it  is unfortunate that investigating officer\t has<br \/>\nnot  stepped  into the witness box without  any\t justifiable<br \/>\nground.\t  But  this conduct of the investigating officer  or<br \/>\nother  hostile\twitnesses cannot be a ground for  discarding<br \/>\nthe  evidence  of PW5 and PW7 whose presence on the spot  is<br \/>\nestablished  beyond  reasonable doubt.\tThey  have  suffered<br \/>\ninjuries  and  their  evidence is  corroborated\t by  medical<br \/>\nevidence.   It\tis  also in-conformity with  what  has\tbeen<br \/>\nstated\tin  the FIR.  In any case, investigating officer  is<br \/>\nnot  at all material witness for the purpose of establishing<br \/>\nwhether\t accused or the complainant party was the aggressor.<br \/>\nNot  only that, accused have examined the defence  witnesses<br \/>\nfor  establishing their say.  Hence, non-examination of\t the<br \/>\ninvestigating  officer\tcannot be a ground for holding\tthat<br \/>\ninjured witnesses should not be believed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is  also to be pointed out that PW4  Vikram  Singh<br \/>\n(informant)  who  had  lodged\tFIR  immediately  was  under<br \/>\nconstant  threat  and was compelled not to speak  the  truth<br \/>\ndespite the fact that he was the brother of deceased.  Other<br \/>\nwitnesses  also turned hostile including PW6 Prem Singh\t son<br \/>\nof  Pratap  Singh  and PW8 Rattan Lal, which  indicates,  as<br \/>\nobserved  by the High Court, that accused party was stronger<br \/>\nin terms of money power and muscle power.  At this stage, we<br \/>\nwould observe that the Sessions Judge ought to have followed<br \/>\nthe  mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C.  of completing the trial<br \/>\nby  examining the witnesses from day to day and not giving a<br \/>\nchance\tto accused to threaten or win over the witnesses  so<br \/>\nthat  they may not support the prosecution.  It appears from<br \/>\nthe record that examination-in-chief of PW4 Vikram Singh was<br \/>\nover  on 06.2.1984.  The counsel representing Ambika  Prasad<br \/>\nrequested  the court that because of his uncles demise,\t he<br \/>\nwould not be in a position to cross-examine the witness and,<br \/>\ntherefore,  recording of further cross-examination might  be<br \/>\nadjourned.   Thereafter,  the witness was cross-examined  in<br \/>\nthe  month  of\tJuly,  1985.  In our view,  this  is  highly<br \/>\nimproper.   Even  if  the  request for\tadjournment  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t  counsel   for\t the   accused\twas  accepted,\t the<br \/>\ncross-examination ought not to have been deferred beyond two<br \/>\nor three days.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to<br \/>\n25  persons collected at the spot at the time of incident as<br \/>\ndeposed\t  by  the  prosecution\t witnesses,  not  a   single<br \/>\nindependent  witness  has been examined and,  therefore,  no<br \/>\nreliance  should  be placed on the evidence of PW5 and\tPW7.<br \/>\nThis  submission also deserves to be rejected.\tIt is  known<br \/>\nfact  that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness<br \/>\nor  to\tassist\tthe investigation.  Reasons are not  far  to<br \/>\nseek.\tFirstly,  in  cases where injured witnesses  or\t the<br \/>\nclose relative of the deceased are under constant threat and<br \/>\nthey  dare  not depose truth before the\t court,\t independent<br \/>\nwitnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed.\tThat<br \/>\nbelief\tcannot\tbe said to be without any substance.   Other<br \/>\nreason\tmay  be\t the  delay in\trecording  the\tevidence  of<br \/>\nindependent  witnesses\tand  repeated  adjournments  in\t the<br \/>\ncourt.\t In any case, if independent persons are not willing<br \/>\nto  cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot  be<br \/>\nblamed\tand it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence<br \/>\nof  injured  witnesses.\t Dealing with similar contention  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1811660\/\">State of UP v.\tAnil Singh (Supra)<\/a> this Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  some\tcases,\tthe  entire  prosecution  case\tis<br \/>\ndoubted\t for not examining all witnesses to the\t occurrence.<br \/>\nWe have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the<br \/>\npublic\tin  the\t investigation of crimes.   The\t public\t are<br \/>\ngenerally  reluctant  to come forward to depose\t before\t the<br \/>\nCourt.\t It  is,  therefore,  not   correct  to\t reject\t the<br \/>\nprosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to<br \/>\nthe  occurrence have not been examined.\t Nor it is proper to<br \/>\nreject\tthe  case for want of corroboration  by\t independent<br \/>\nwitnesses  if  the  case  made out  is\totherwise  true\t and<br \/>\nacceptable.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The learned counsel for the accused further raised the<br \/>\ncontention  that there was delay in recording the statements<br \/>\nof  injured witnesses, therefore, their evidence should\t not<br \/>\nbe  accepted,  also requires to be rejected.  In Dr  Krishna<br \/>\nPal &amp; Anr.  v.\tState of U.P.  {(1996) 7 SCC 194} this court<br \/>\nrejected  similar  contention  of   non-explanation  by\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  as to why eye- witnesses had not been  examined<br \/>\nshortly\t after\tthe  incident and for  inordinate  delay  in<br \/>\nexamining  them, by holding that it would not be a ground to<br \/>\ndiscard\t the convincing and reliable evidence adduced in the<br \/>\ncase.  This contention is also considered by both the courts<br \/>\nand  has  rightly not been accepted.  The trial court  after<br \/>\nconsidering  the evidence of PW5 Karan Singh held that delay<br \/>\nin   recording\tthe  statement\tof   this  witness  by\t the<br \/>\ninvestigating  agency  stands explained because Karan  Singh<br \/>\nwas  having  injuries on his face and in the region  of\t his<br \/>\nmouth.\t His mouth was swollen with injuries all around\t and<br \/>\nhe  could  hardly  speak.   It\tis  also  pointed  out\tthat<br \/>\ninvestigation  officer\twas  visiting  the  hospital  almost<br \/>\ndaily, obviously for the purpose of recording his statement.<br \/>\nSimilarly,  PW7\t Anirudh Singh has stated that he was  under<br \/>\ntremendous  fear  from the accused party.  He was not  going<br \/>\nout of his house and was staying with his in-laws and moving<br \/>\nstealthily.   It  is  to  be stated that  both\tthe  injured<br \/>\nwitnesses  were found in the injured condition at the  scene<br \/>\nof  offence.  From that place they were removed to Hindu Rao<br \/>\nHospital by SI Prithi Pal Singh, who reached there after the<br \/>\noccurrence.  Their injuries are also proved by Dr.  Joginder<br \/>\nMittal,\t PW1.\tThey have deposed before the court that\t Ram<br \/>\nChander\t was having a gun in his hand, Rajinder was having a<br \/>\nballam\tand  accused  Ambika Prasad was having a  lathi\t and<br \/>\nother  accused\twere also having lathis.   Accused  Rajinder<br \/>\ninflicted  ballam blow and Ram Adhar inflicted jaili blow on<br \/>\nKaran Singh.  Ram Adhar also inflicted jaili blow on Anirudh<br \/>\nSingh.\t It is also stated by them that Ram Chander fired  a<br \/>\nshot  from his gun which hit Virender Singhs chest and as a<br \/>\nresult\tVirender  Singh\t fell on the spot  and\tdied.\tBoth<br \/>\nspecifically  denied the defence version that they alongwith<br \/>\ntheir  brothers\t started demolishing the wall of  Gurudwara.<br \/>\nBoth  the  witnesses  have narrated the\t entire\t prosecution<br \/>\nversion.   Further  PW4\t who had resiled  from\this  earlier<br \/>\nstatement  because  of the fear adhered to his version\tthat<br \/>\nall  the  accused  were known to him and came there  on\t the<br \/>\nspot.\tHe has also stated that Ambika Prasad and Krishanpal<br \/>\nwere  apprehended  on  the spot.  Mr.  Jain  learned  senior<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  accused  Ram  Chander  has  pointed  out\tthat<br \/>\nevidence  of PW5 Karan Singh is inconsistent because he\t has<br \/>\ndeposed\t that  he  became   unconscious\t immediately   after<br \/>\nreceiving  the\tinjuries  and yet he told  the\tpolice\tthat<br \/>\naccused\t persons  ran  away  towards   the  East  after\t the<br \/>\noccurrence.   He  has also pointed out that the witness\t has<br \/>\nshown  his  ignorance  whether his mother (Kishan  Dei)\t was<br \/>\nexamined  as PW10.  In our view, the aforesaid insignificant<br \/>\nembellishments\twould not in any way affect his evidence and<br \/>\nboth the courts, therefore, rightly relied upon the evidence<br \/>\nof the injured witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Now, we would deal with the next contention of learned<br \/>\nsenior\tcounsel, Mr.  Jain appearing for accused Ram Chander<br \/>\nwho allegedly used fire arm and caused the death of Virender<br \/>\nSingh,\tthat he is not named in the FIR and, therefore,\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of eye-witnesses should not be relied upon.\tThis<br \/>\ncontention requires to be rejected because the eye-witnesses<br \/>\nwere  knowing  him (Ram Chander) and was a  known  wrestler,<br \/>\nworking\t  in  the  police   department.\t  His  identity\t was<br \/>\nmentioned  in  the  FIR as moohbola brother of\tRam  Adhar<br \/>\nPehalwan  and  whose  ears  have   been\t damaged.   All\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses  namely  PW4,\t PW5, PW7 have identified  him,\t and<br \/>\nthere was no reason for them to falsely implicate him.\tBoth<br \/>\nthe  courts have rightly considered this aspect and rejected<br \/>\nthe  same.   Further,  in his statement\t under\tSection\t 313<br \/>\nCr.P.C.\t  he pleaded his alibi and has stated that he was in<br \/>\npolice\t  department\tand\twas\t a    wrestler\t  of<br \/>\nnational\/international\tteam.  As he was selected for  Asiad<br \/>\n1982,  he  used\t to remain in Akhara for practice  and\tthat<br \/>\nAkhara\tis 8 to 9 km.  from the place of occurrence.  On the<br \/>\nday  of\t occurrence, HC Mangat Ram and\tConstable  Ghanshyam<br \/>\nwere  having wrestling training with him in Akhara.  When he<br \/>\ncame  to  know\tthat he has been involved in this  case,  he<br \/>\nsurrendered  himself.\tHe  stated that DBB1  .12  bore\t gun<br \/>\nbelongs\t to  him  and  it  was never used  at  the  time  of<br \/>\nincident.   His plea is supported by the defence witness DW5<br \/>\nHC  Mangat  Ram.   Further, the prosecution  witnesses\tPW20<br \/>\nSuraj  Bhan and PW31 SI Kulwant Rai have resiled from  their<br \/>\nearlier\t statements and have not supported the\tprosecution.<br \/>\nThis  plea is also rightly rejected by both the courts.\t The<br \/>\ntrial  court appreciated the evidence of DW5 HC Mangat\tRam.<br \/>\nIn  his\t cross-examination he admitted that he had not\ttold<br \/>\nabout the presence of accused Ram Chander in Akhara at the<br \/>\nrelevant  time to SHO or the investigating officer.  He\t has<br \/>\nalso  admitted\tthat practice hours were from 5.00 a.m.\t  to<br \/>\n8.00  a.m.   The trial court, therefore, held that  as\tduty<br \/>\nhours were from 5.00 a.m.  to 8.00 a.m.\t and as the incident<br \/>\nhad  taken  place at about 10.15 a.m.  there was  sufficient<br \/>\ntime  for  accused to be present at the place  of  incident.<br \/>\nHence,\tthere  was no reason to disbelieve the\tevidence  of<br \/>\ninjured\t two eye-witnesses and PW4 Vikram Singh with  regard<br \/>\nto presence of the accused at the scene of offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  learned senior counsel Mr.  Thakur appearing\t for<br \/>\naccused\t Ambika\t Prasad and Krishanpal submitted that  there<br \/>\nwas  no\t reason\t to disbelieve the plea\t of  accused  Ambika<br \/>\nPrasad.\t  Ambika  Prasad has stated in his  statement  under<br \/>\nSection\t 313  Cr.P.C.  that he had purchased a plot  in\t the<br \/>\nname  of his brother from one Bhagwan Dass;  he had built  a<br \/>\nroom on the same and that he was elected Secretary of Saroop<br \/>\nNagar  Welfare Association;  prior to the date of  incident,<br \/>\nVikram\tSingh, Karan Singh and Virender Singh had demolished<br \/>\nthe boundary walls of many houses with a tractor but had not<br \/>\ndemolished  each house;\t on 30.6.1982 at about 10.00 a.m all<br \/>\nthese  persons armed with lathis and other weapons came with<br \/>\na tractor and started demolishing walls of the plots;  there<br \/>\nwas  a\tGurudwara  consisting of one room managed  by  Santa<br \/>\nSingh which had also a boundary wall;  the complainant party<br \/>\nwith  their tractor demolished one boundary wall of the said<br \/>\nGurudwara,  so various people protested and started throwing<br \/>\nstones.\t  Complainant party also started beating him and  at<br \/>\nthat stage someone from the crowd fired, which hit Virender.<br \/>\nHe  fell  down on the spot.  After riots in the\t year  1982,<br \/>\nsaid Gurudwara was razed to ground.  From the aforesaid plea<br \/>\nof  the\t accused,  the learned counsel\tsubmitted  that\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  party  went  for\tcultivating  the  fields  is<br \/>\nabsolute  false\t because  there was no land which  could  be<br \/>\ncultivated.   In our view, this additional submission  taken<br \/>\nby  the counsel is without any basis.  Further in any set of<br \/>\ncircumstance  Pratap  Singh  was the owner of more  than  24<br \/>\nbighas of agricultural land, out of which agreement was only<br \/>\nfor  sale  of 2 bighas of land.\t Therefore,  remaining\tland<br \/>\ncould be presumed to be cultivable one.\t As such, it has not<br \/>\nbeen  pointed out at any stage by the defence that there was<br \/>\nno other land which was cultivable.  The learned counsel Mr.<br \/>\nThakur\tfurther\t submitted  that as  complainant  party\t was<br \/>\ndemolishing  the wall of Gurudwara, various people protested<br \/>\nand  started throwing stones and at that stage someone\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  crowd  fired,  which hit Virender.\t In our\t view,\tthis<br \/>\ndefence\t version  is totally baseless.\tOn this aspect,\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court rightly observed that no person whose  boundary<br \/>\nwall  was demolished has been examined and that no  evidence<br \/>\nwas forthcoming from any person from Gurudwara that boundary<br \/>\nwall  of  Gurudwara  was demolished.  Further, there  is  no<br \/>\nreason to believe the defence version that somebody from the<br \/>\ncrowd  fired  which  hit  Virender   Singh.   Hence,  it  is<br \/>\ndifficult  to  believe\tthe  plea   of\tAmbika\tPrasad\tthat<br \/>\ncomplainant party was aggressor and they came on the spot to<br \/>\ndemolish  the  construction  made by the accused  and  other<br \/>\npersons.   There  is  nothing  on record  to  indicate\tthat<br \/>\ncomplainant  party  was armed with any weapons.\t As  against<br \/>\nthis,  accused\twere armed with deadly weapons\tnamely\tfire<br \/>\narm,  jaili, ballam (spear) and lathis.\t Injuries caused  to<br \/>\nthe complainant party were more serious while minor injuries<br \/>\nwere  caused  to  accused Ambika Prasad\t and  Krishanpal  as<br \/>\ndeposed\t by  PW2 Dr.  P.K.  Sakondia.  The learned  counsel,<br \/>\nMr.  Thakur also submitted that there was no reason or rhyme<br \/>\nfor  non- examining the Patwari, who was cited as a  witness<br \/>\nand  was  given\t up by the prosecution.\t In our\t view,\twith<br \/>\nregard\tto  the\t incident  examination\tof  patwari  is\t not<br \/>\nmaterial.   What  was  agreed to be sold as deposed  by\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses was only 2 bighas out of 24 bighas of agricultural<br \/>\nland.\tHence, the contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant  that complainant party came there on the spot  to<br \/>\ndemolish  the  construction  and  they\twere  aggressors  is<br \/>\nwithout any foundation and substance.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  the  result, no interference is called for in\t the<br \/>\naforementioned\t appeals.   Accordingly,   Criminal   Appeal<br \/>\nNo.1152 of 1997 filed by Ambika Prasad and Krishan Pal Singh<br \/>\nis  dismissed,\ttheir bail-bonds are cancelled and they\t are<br \/>\ndirected  to surrender forthwith to undergo their  remaining<br \/>\nsentences;   Criminal  Appeal No.1153 of 1997 filed  by\t Ram<br \/>\nChander\t and  Criminal\tAppeal\tNo.1154\t of  1997  filed  by<br \/>\nRajinder Singh are also dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000 Author: Shah Bench: G.B.Patnaik, M.B.Shah PETITIONER: AMBIKA PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/01\/2000 BENCH: G.B.Patnaik, M.B.Shah JUDGMENT: Shah,J. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 21.3.1997 passed by [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, ... on 21 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, ... on 21 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T16:00:59+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T16:00:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\"},\"wordCount\":4520,\"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\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\",\"name\":\"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, ... on 21 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T16:00:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, ... on 21 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, ... on 21 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T16:00:59+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000","datePublished":"2000-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T16:00:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000"},"wordCount":4520,"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\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000","name":"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, ... on 21 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T16:00:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambika-prasad-and-another-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-21-january-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, &#8230; on 21 January, 2000"}]},{"@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\/108368","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=108368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108368\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}