{"id":110813,"date":"1992-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992"},"modified":"2017-08-03T07:43:00","modified_gmt":"2017-08-03T02:13:00","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 2045, \t\t 1992 SCR (2) 815<\/div>\n
Author: S Pandian<\/div>\n
Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/04\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 2045\t\t  1992 SCR  (2) 815\n 1992 SCC  (3) 300\t  JT 1992 (3)\t114\n 1992 SCALE  (1)937\n\n\nACT:\n     Penal  Code,  1860-Sections  302,\t201-Appeal   against\nacquittal by High Court-Circumstantial evidence-Ingredients-\nLinks of chain of circumstances established-Offences proved.\n     Penal   Code,  1860-Sections  302,\t 201-Conviction\t  of\naccused by Trial Court-Aquittal by High Court-Appeal against\nHigh  Court's  judgment suffering from\tillegality-Delay  in\ndisposal of appeal-Whether a ground for non-interference  of\nthe findings of High Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The prosecution's case was that the  accused-respondent\nwas a private medical practitioner and the deceased was\t his\nsecond\twife.  He married her on 30.7.1971, when  his  first\nmarriage  was dissolved by an ex parte decree in a suit\t for\ndissolution filed by his first wife.\n     The  respondent  and  his widowed mother  and  his\t two\nmarried\t brothers  and one unmarried  younger  brother\twere\nliving\tunder  a  common roof having  common  mess,  but  in\nseparate rooms in the first floor of their house.\n     The  accused was a chronic alcoholic addict and he\t was\nhaving\ta  large circle of friends. He used to come  to\t his\nhouse in odd hours in drunken state.  This was resented\t by\nhis wife, the deceased.\t She insisted the accused to  return\nhome  early.   On  account  of\tthis,  there  were  frequent\nquarrels  between  them.   Accused,  disliking\this   wife's\ninterference in his private affairs, even started suspecting\nthe fidelity of his wife.  It was said that the accused\t had\non  more  than one occasion unleashed threats to  shoot\t and\nkill the deceased.\n     On the night of 11.10.1971 the accused and the deceased\ntook  their bed inside their room.  On the next morning,  on\nseeing\tsmoke  out of the bed room of the accused,  a  large\nnumber of people gathered at the house of the accused.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       816\n     At about 7.30 a.m., PW-2 and another, the two  brothers\nof the deceased arrived there with `Ahoi Bayna' in  baskets.\nSeeing the crowd in front of accused house, they entertained\na  suspicion.  When they were told that the  accused's\twife\nhad set fire to herself, throwing the `Bayna' baskets in the\ncourtyard, they went up to the first floor and saw the\tdead\nbody of their sister lying on the floor with extensive burns\nall  over her body.  When they confronted the  accused,\t the\naccused\t told them that when he had gone to the\t latrine  in\nthe  early morning, the deceased committed suicide,  for  no\nvisible reason.\t The deceased's brothers did not believe the\nversion\t of  the  accused. They\t shouted  that\tthe  accused\nmurdered their sister.\tWhile they were quarrelling, PW-4, a\nHead Constable came to the scene found the accused  standing\nin his night-gown.  P.W.4  was informed by the accused\tthat\nthe decreased had burnt herself.\n     The  S.P.(PW-3)  was  informed over  telephone  by\t the\naccused\t that his wife committed suicide and  he  instructed\nthe  accused  to inform the local police.  He  come  to\t the\nscene  at about 9.15 a.m., after directing the local  police\nto  come  to the scene.\t After inspection,  the\t S.P.  left,\ngiving instructions to the Investigating Officer.\n     The  Investigating Officer (PW-4) examined the  inmates\nof  the\t house and made an entry in the\t General  Diary\t and\nregistered a case against the accused.\n     The  accused was charged u\/ss.302 and 201, IPC for\t the\ncommitting  the\t murder\t of his wife  and  for\tcausing\t the\nevidence  of  the  offence of murder to\t disappear  with  an\nintention  of  screening himself from legal  punishment,  by\nburning the dead body by sprinkling kerosene oil.\n     The   Trial  Court\t convicted  the\t  accused-respondent\nu\/ss.302   and\t 201  IPC  and\tsentenced  him\t to   suffer\nimprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period\nof 3 years, respectively with a direction that the sentences\nwere to run concurrently.\n     The  High\tCourt allowed the appeal and  acquitted\t the\naccused-respondent.\n     Against  the  acquittal passed by the High\t Court,\t the\npresent\t appeal was directed by the State,  contending\tthat\nthe  cumulative effect of all the pieces  of  circumstantial\nevidence brought on record by the prosecution\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       817\njustified the conviction of the respondent.\n     The respondent submitted that the circumstances  relied\nupon  by the prosecution were not clinching the issue;\tthat\nthe  presence  of the respondent at the scene house  at\t the\ntime of the occurrence was disproved by CWs-1 and 2 and also\nby  the\t evidence  of  PWs-6  and  9  did  not\tsupport\t the\nprosecution  case; that in the early hours of 12.10.1971  he\nat the request of PW-9 paid a visit to one Shashi's house as\nthe latter was suffering from some ailments and he  returned\nat  about  7.45 or 8.00 a.m. to his house and came  to\tknow\nabout  the incident; that the brothers of the deceased\tcame\nto  his\t house\tonly  at 11.15 a.m.  and  that\ttoo  on\t his\ntelephonic  information to them; that the  deceased  herself\nhad  created a hell of her own in the family and  ultimately\ncommitted  suicide  by pouring kerosene on her\tand  setting\nfire; that on the advice and prescription given by a Doctor,\nthe  deceased was put on medicine  containing  barbiturates,\nthe  traces  of\t which were found in  her  visra;  that\t the\nsymptoms  found\t by PW-1, the Medical Officer  were  not  in\nsupport of the conclusion arrived at by PW-1, whose  opinion\nwas  only  attributable to his inexperience  or\t negligence;\nthat the bones could have been fractured due to excess\theat\nand the death could have been on account of shock due to the\nburn  injuries; that the cause of death could not have\tbeen\ndue  to strangulation, but it was due to suicide by  pouring\nkerosene  and setting herself on fire and the  fractures  of\nthe  bones and other symptoms found on the body should\thave\nbeen due to the intensity of the heat and that the  evidence\nof  PW-1  supporting the prosecution version should  not  be\naccepted,  as  the Medical Officer gave\t false\tevidence  on\naccount\t of some heated exchanges between him and PW-1\tover\nan election held among the medicos which took place about  2\nor 3 days before occurrence;\n     Allowing the appeal of the State, this Court,\n     HELD:1.01 . There is no direct evidence to connect\t the\nrespondent  with this offence of murder and the\t prosecution\nentirely rests its case on circumstantial evidence. [827 C]\n     1.02.  The essential ingredients to prove guilt  of  an\naccused person by circumstantial evidence are:\n     (1)   the\tcircumstances from which the  conclusion  is\ndrawn should be fully proved;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       818\n     (2)  the circumstances should be conclusive in nature;\n     (3)  all the facts so established should be  consistent\n\t  only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent\n\t  with innocence;\n     (4)   the circumstances should, to a  moral  certainty,\n\t  exclude  the\tpossibility of guilt of\t any  person\n\t  other than the accused.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [827 D-F]\n     1.03. The circumstances which are established as having\nclosely linked up with one another are as follows:\n     (1)  The motive for the occurrence.\n     (2)   The\troom  in  which\t this  tragic  and  pathetic\n\t  incident   took   place  was\tin   the   exclusive\n\t  possession  and occupation of the  respondent\t and\n\t  the deceased.\n     (3)   The occurrence had happened in the wee  hours  of\n\t  12th\tOctober 1971 when nobody would have  got  an\n\t  ingress into the room wherein the husband and wife\n\t  admittedly slept.\n     (4)  The evidence of PW-2, swearing that the respondent\n\t  was found in the scene house at 7.15\ta.m.\n     (5)   The\tpresence of the respondent inside  the\troom\n\t  wearing  night-gown  when PW-4 went to  the  scene\n\t  room.\n     (6)  The position of the dead body lying on the  ground\n\t  within a cot frame with extensive burns except  on\n\t  the back and lumbar regions.\n     (7)   The presence of the traditional external  visible\n\t  features of strangulation as well as the  internal\n\t  injuries establish the use of violence.\n     (8)   The\tpositive opinion of PW-1 who  conducted\t the\n\t  autopsy on the dead body of the deceased,  stating\n\t  that\tthe death was due to strangulation  and\t the\n\t  burns were post mortem.\n     (9)   False  plea\tof  alibi and  the  conduct  of\t the\n\t  respondent feigning innocence.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       819\n     (10)   The\t intrinsic  value  of  the  inviolable\t and\nimpregnable  evidence let in by the  prosecution  completely\nand conclusively establishing the links of the entire  chain\nof circumstances as a whole and not in fragments proving the\nguilt of the respondent\/accused. [828 B-H]\n     1.04.  The conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court  is\nlogical,  tenable, and reasonably sustainable and  that\t the\nHigh Court after holding that the death of the deceased\t was\nhomicidal has gone wrong in recording the impugned order  of\nacquittal on erroneous and incredulous reasons.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  [835 G-H]\n     Rama  Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh,<\/a> [1981]  1\t SCC\n511;  Gambir  v.  State of Maharashtra, [1982]\t2  SCC\t351;\nEarabhadrappa  v. State of Kamataka, [1983] 2 SCC  330;\t Ram\nAvtar  v. State of Delhi Administration,<\/a> [1985] (supp.)\t SCC\n410 and Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh,  JT\n(1992) 1 SC 258, followed.\n     Modi's  Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology,\t21st\nEdition\t at  page 23; Taylor's Principles  and\tPractice  of\nMedical Jurisprudence, referred to.\n     2.01.  The\t plea  of  the\trespondent  that  since\t the\noccurrence took place in the year 1971 and that more than 14\nyears have now elapsed since the delivery of the judgment by\nthe High Court in October 1977, this Court be pleased not to\ndisturb the finding the acquittal at this length of time has\nto  be summarily rejected when the facts and  the  impelling\ncircumstances  surrounding the present case cry for  justice\nwhich  in  turn\t demands  for  awarding\t proper\t  punishment\naccording to law, is fervent and inexorable.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [836 A-B]\n     2.02.  If\tthe  High  Court's  judgment  of   acquittal\nreversing  the\twell reasoned judgment of the  Trial  Court,\nconvicting  the respondent is affirmed, it will\t be  nothing\nbut   a\t mockery  of  justice  and  will  also\t amount\t  to\nperpetration  of gross and irreparable injustice.  Moreover,\nwhen a judgment appealed against, suffers from illegality or\nmanifest error or perversity, warranting an interference  at\nthe  hands of an Appellate Court in the interest of  justice\non substantial and compelling reasons, the mere delay in the\ndisposal of the appeal will never serve as a ground for non-\ninterference  and on the other hand, the Appellate Court  is\nduty bound to set at naught the miscarriage of justice. [836\nC-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       820<\/span>
\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 124 of
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated 11.10.1977  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     R.K. Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellant.
\n     R.L. Kohli and J.M. KHanna for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This appeal is preferred by the
\nState  of  U.P.\t on being aggrieved by\tthe  judgment  dated
\n11.10.1977  rendered  by  the High  Court  of  Allahabad  in
\ncriminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1972 whereby the High Court\t has
\nallowed\t the  appeal, preferred by  the\t respondent\/accused,
\nnamely, Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent took his trial on the allegations\tthat
\non the intervening night of 11\/12th October 1971 inside\t the
\nhouse in Mohalla Moreganj Police Station Kotwali, Saharanpur
\ncommitted  the\tmurder of his wife Smt. Kamlesh;  burnt\t the
\ndead body by sprinkling the kerosene oil and thereby  caused
\nthe  evidence of the offence of murder to disappear with  an
\nintention  of screening himself from legal  punishment.\t  On
\nthe above allegations, he stood charge under two heads, that
\nis under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
     Adumberated in brief, the facts of the prosecution case
\ncan be summarised as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal aged  about
\n29  years  in  1971 was a private  medical  practitioner  at
\nSaharanpur  city.  He  married one Smt.\t Mithlesh,  but\t the
\nmarriage  was dissolved by an ex-parte decree in a suit\t for
\ndissolution  filed by the wife.\t The  respondent  thereafter
\nmarried\t on 30th July 1971 the deceased Smt.  Kamlesh,\taged
\nabout  20 years who was a resident of Jagadhri.\t The  family
\nof  the\t respondent  consisted of his  widowed\tmother\tSmt.
\nDarshnadevi  (CW-1), and three brothers,  namely,  Bhupendra
\nPrakash\t (CW-2), Narendra Prakash and Virendra\tPrakash,  of
\nwhom  the  first two brothers were  married  while  Virendra
\nPrakash was unmarried. It is stated that his father had died
\nof  heart  attack a few months before his  second  marriage.
\nThey all lived under common roof, having common mess but  in
\nseparate rooms in the first floor of their house with  their
\nrespective  wives  and children. Smt.  Darshnadevi  and\t her
\nyounger son
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       821<\/span>
\nVirendra   Prakash  had\t occupied  a  separate\troom.\t The
\nrespondent  had\t his clinic in the ground floor.   PW-6,  by
\nname, Mohd. Aslam alias Chini was working as a Compounder in
\nthe clinic, occasionally doing domestic work.\n<\/p>\n
     Smt.  Kamlesh had two brothers, by name,  Mamchand\t and
\nSuresh\tChand  (PW-2).\tHer elder sister’s  husband  is\t one
\nNagesh Agarwal (PW-7).\tIt transpires from the evidence that
\nafter  her mother’s death she had mostly lived in her  elder
\nsister’s  house till her marriage.  After the marriage,\t she
\nvisited\t her parents and brother-in-law twice or  thrice  in
\nquick  succession and wrote some letters, two of  which\t are
\nmarked\tas  Exts.  Ka-3\t dated\t18.9.1971  and\tKa-4   dated
\n19.9.1971.   The case of the prosecution is that  some\ttime
\nafter the marriage the relationship between the deceased and
\nthe  respondent\t became\t strained.   It\t is  said  that\t the
\nrespondent  had on more than one occasion unleashed  threats
\nto  shoot  and kill the deceased.  While it was so,  on\t the
\nfateful\t night the respondent and the deceased after  taking
\ntheir  dinner slept in a room which was in  their  exclusive
\npossession.   In the morning the dead body of  the  deceased
\nSmt. Kamlesh smelling of kerosene  was found by the  inmates
\nof the house inside the bed room lying within a cot frame of
\nthe  floor.  The respondent and his family members came\t out
\nwith  a\t statement that deceased had  committed\t suicide  by
\nsprinkling  kerosene  and  setting  herself  on\t fire.\t The
\nrespondent  telephoned\tto  the\t Superintendent\t of  Police,
\nSaharanpur  (PW-3) and informed that his wife  Smt.  Kamlesh
\nhad committed suicide.\tPW-3 asked the respondent to  inform
\nthe  local police and told that he would himself soon  reach
\nthe  spot.  Meanwhile, PW-4, Ram Krishan, a  Head  constable
\nattached to the outpost Mali Gate came to the scene place on
\nhis way to Kotwali.  He on receipt of the information  about
\nthe  death of Kamlesh telephoned to Kotwali  Police  Station
\nand  informed  PW-13,  another\tHead  Constable\t about\t the
\nincident.   This piece of information passed on by PW-4\t was
\nentered\t in  the  General Diary (Ext. Ka-28)  at  8.00\ta.m.
\nreading that PW-4 had informed over telephone that the\twife
\nof  the respondent had died of burns.  The Sub Inspector  of
\nPolice,\t Ganga\tRam  Nagar (PW-10)  in\twhose  presence\t the
\ntelephonic  message from PW-4 had been received at  Kotwali,
\nimmediately  proceeded to the scene accompanied\t by  another
\nS.I. Asthan and Inspector Wajid Ali Khan (PW-14).  They\t all
\nreached\t the scene at about 8.30 A.M. and found a  crowd  of
\nabout  150 to 200 persons at the scene house.\tOn  reaching
\nthe  scene house, PW-10 found a basket with some snacks\t and
\nsweets lying scattered in the court-yard.  The police  party
\nwent  to  the upstairs and found the  respondent  and  other
\nmembers of the family
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       822<\/span>
\npresent. Insides the bed room the dead body of the  deceased
\nwas  found  lying on the floor within the frame of  the\t cot
\nwith  extensive\t burns.\t An inquest was held over  the\tdead
\nbody.  Certain photographs (Exts. A-D, F and G) were  caused
\nto  be\ttaken with the help of PW-11, a\t photographer.\t The
\ninquest\t report\t is filed as Ext, Ka-8.\t After\tsending\t the
\ndead  body for post-mortem, PW-10 inspected the scene  place
\nand prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-10).  The room in  which
\nthe  dead body was lying had its door opening to  the  inner
\nbalcony\t towards  east.\t Adjacent to this room there  was  a
\nsmall  kitchen containing utensils and other articles.\t The
\nwooden frame of the cot was scorched.  About two steps\taway
\nfrom the dead body a match box containing a large number  of
\nburnt  match sticks was found lying.  A thin layer of  smoke
\nwas present on the walls and ceiling of the room.  A plastic
\nbucket with water was found two or three steps away from the
\ndead  body,  but there were no signs of\t water\thaving\tbeen
\npoured\teither\ton the dead body or in the  scene  room.   A
\nmedicine  box  was found inside the room with  an  injection
\nsyringe fitted with a needle.  A five litre kerosene oil tin
\nwas  in the room containing about a litre of kerosene.\t All
\nthe  articles  (Exts. 4 to 22) which were found\t inside\t the
\nroom  were  recovered under Memos (Exts.  Ka-11\t to  Ka-17).
\nMeanwhile,  the Superintendent of Police (PW-3) reached\t the
\nspot  by  about 9.15 a.m.  He also inspected  the  place  of
\nincident and left the scene after giving instructions to the
\nInvestigating  Officer.\t The  Investigation  Officer   after
\nexamining the inmates of the house came to the station; made
\nan entry in the General Diary (Ext. Ka-18) and registered  a
\ncase  against  the  respondent\tunder  Section\t302  IPC  on
\nentertaining  a suspicion against him on the materials\tthat
\nhe had collected.\n<\/p>\n
     PW-1,  the\t Medical Officer attached  to  the  District
\nHospital, Saharanpur, conducted necropsy on the dead body of
\nthe deceased on the following day i.e. 13.10.1971.  The dead
\nbody with blackening of the skin was smelling kerosene.\t The
\nhands  of  the\tdeceased  were\tclenched.   The\t eyes\twere
\ncongested and the eye-balls were prominent.  The tongue\t was
\nswollen\t and protruding out and also compressed between\t the
\nteeth.\t Blood\tmixed  with froth  was\tcoming\tout  through
\nnostrils.   On\tinternal examination,  the  Medical  Officer
\nfound  the 6th and 7th ribs fractured.\tThe right cornua  of
\nthe Hyoid bone was also fractured.  The brain was congested;
\nthe  thorax had extensive burns in the upper region.   There
\nwas  a contused area measuring 5 cm. X 4 cm. on the side  of
\nth  fracture.\tOn  the right side of  the  neck  there\t was
\nclotted blood in an area of 4 cm. X 3 cm. and the muscles at
\nthat place were lacerated.  The larynx and trachea and\tboth
\nthe
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       823<\/span>
\nlungs  were  all  congested and they  contained\t dark  fluid
\nblood.\t The  inner layers of the right carotid\t artery\t was
\ncongested.   The bladder was empty.  The Medical Officer  is
\nof the opinion that death was due to strangulation and\tthat
\nthe  fractures on the body were ante-mortem.  His report  is
\nmarked as Ext. Ka-1.  In the cross-examination, the  Medical
\nOfficer\t has  stated that the deceased could  have  died  on
\n12.10.1971  between 7.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. in the  morning,
\nwhich he has clarified in his re-examination  stating\tthat
\nthis  opinion  is  subject to a margin of 2 to\t4  hours  on
\neither\tside.  He gave a supplementary report, stating\tthat
\nthe  fractures of the bones were ante-mortem but  the  burns
\nwere-post-mortem.   The\t supplementary report is  marked  as
\nExt. Ka-2.  The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. Ka-38)
\nrevealed  traces  of  barbiturates in the  portions  of\t the
\nviscera of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     The    Investigating   Officer   searched\t  for\t the
\nrespondent\/accused,  but he could not secure him as  he\t was
\nnot  available.\t He examined the inmates of the\t house,\t and
\nthe   compounder   (PW-6)   and\t  some\t others.     Further
\ninvestigation  was taken up by the Inspector of Police\t(PW-\n<\/p>\n
14) on 14.10.1971.  PW-14 received the two letters (Exts.Ka-
\n3  and Ka-4) on being handed over by PW-7.  At\tabout  11.00
\np.m. on that day the respondent was arrested when the latter
\nwas  proceeding in a car towards Dehradun and  interrogated.
\nAfter completing the investigation the charge sheet (Ext.Ka-\n<\/p>\n
33) was laid.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent denied his complicity with the  offence
\nin question and gave a lengthy statement.  According to him,
\nhe was having cordial relationship with his wife and he\t did
\nnot cause the death of his wife or he sprinkled kerosene  on
\nher  dead  body.  On the early morning of the  date  of\t the
\noccurrence he, leaving his wife in the kitchen, went outside
\nto examine a patient accompanied by one Jageshwar (PW-9) and
\nreturned  only\tat about 7.45 or 8 a.m. and found  his\twife
\nlying  dead.  He further adds that he  immediately  informed
\nthe  Superintendent  of\t Police\t (PW-3)\t about\tthis  tragic
\nincident.\n<\/p>\n
     There  is\tno  direct  evidence  to  prove\t to  charges
\nlevelled   against  the\t respondent  and   the\t prosecution
\nendeavours to establish the guilt of the respondent only  on
\nthe circumstantial evidence – both oral and documentary.  14
\nwitnesses  were examined on the side of the  prosecution  of
\nwhom  PW-6  (the  Compounder)  and  PW-9  (Jageshwar)\twere
\ndeclared   as  hostile\twitnesses.   In\t addition   to\t the
\nprosecution  witnesses, the Trial Court examined the  mother
\nand a brother of the respondent as Court Witnesses 1
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       824<\/span>
\nand 2.\tThe substance of the evidence of the Court Witnesses
\nis to the effect that the deceased was found dead inside the
\nroom; that they both threw water evidently to extinguish the
\nfire  and  that the respondent was not in the house  in\t the
\nearly morning.\tThe Trial Court after analysing the evidence
\nin extenso found thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “In any case, the circumstances established are  so
\n\t patent\t and most of them are even accepted  by\t the
\n\t accused,  that\t latches  of the  investigation,  if
\n\t any,  have  little  bearing on\t their\tproof.\t The
\n\t truthfulness  of  the\tevidence  leading  to\tthem
\n\t cannot,  therefore,  be  questioned  for  any\tsuch
\n\t reason………………………………………
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t In  the background of their strained relations\t and
\n\t the  suspicion lurking on the mind of the  accused,
\n\t it  may be that on the deceased uttering  something
\n\t to  his  dislike, he suddenly jumped upon  her\t and
\n\t throttled her to death.  Such an opportunity  could
\n\t scarcely  be available to anyone else in the  house
\n\t with the result that the possibility of anyone else
\n\t committing the murder can on the established  facts
\n\t and  circumstances, be reasonably excluded in\tthis
\n\t case………………………………………..
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t In the circumstances, the chain of evidence, to  my
\n\t mind,\tcan be considered to be so complete  against
\n\t him  as to show that within all  human\t probability
\n\t the  murder of Kamlesh must have been committed  by
\n\t him  and none else.  He can, therefore,  be  safely
\n\t held  guilty  on the basis of\tthese  circumstances
\n\t alone.”\n<\/p>\n
     On\t the  basis of the above findings, the\tTrial  Court
\nconvicted the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC\t and
\nsentenced  him to suffer imprisonment for life and  rigorous
\nimprisonment  for  a period of 3 years respectively  with  a
\ndirection that the sentences are to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     Challenging  the  judgement  of the  Trial\t Court,\t the
\nrespondent filed criminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1972 before the
\nHigh Court which for the reasons mentioned in its  judgement
\nallowed the appeal, set aside the  conviction and  sentences
\nawarded\t by  the Trial Court and acquitted  the\t  respondent
\nholding that:\n<\/p>\n
\t “The  prosecution has, therefore, not been able  to
\n\t establish   the   chain  of   circumstances.\t The
\n\t circumstances as proved are not
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       825<\/span>
\n\t incompatible with the innocence of the appellant.”
\n     The  present appeal is directed by the State  on  being
\naggrieved with the judgement of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  adverting to the rival contentions, adduced  by
\nthe  respective\t parties, we shall give a  prelude  to\tthis
\nincidence  which  in  our opinion has  become  necessary  to
\nnarrate since it serves as a strong motive for this  heinous
\ncrime executed in an extremely cruel manner.\n<\/p>\n
     The  father  of the deceased had married  thrice.\t His
\nthird wife was the deceased’s mother, who died about 4 years
\nbefore the occurrence.\tThe deceased’s father was working at
\nKaratpur  Sahab in Punjab.  The deceased’s sister Urmila  is
\ngiven in marriage to PW-7 and she had two brothers,  namely,
\nPW-2  and  Mamchand.   As Urmila  had  loved  the  deceased,
\nKamlesh, too much she brought Kamlesh with her while Kamlesh
\nwas  10\t years\told and educated her.\tAt  that  time,\t the
\nparents of the deceased were in Calcutta.\n<\/p>\n
     The   respondent  previously  married   one   Mithlesh,
\ndaughter  of  one  Ram Kishan, resident\t of  Shamali.\tThis
\nmarital tie did not serve long and ended in a divorce.\t The
\nrespondent married the deceased Kamlesh on 30.7.1971 and the
\nmarriage  was celebrated in the house of PW-7 at  Jagadhari.
\nAfter the marriage, the deceased Kamlesh was living with her
\nhusband, respondent, occupying a separate room in the  first
\nfloor of their house allotted to them.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent, his widowed mother and three  brothers
\nwere all living under a common roof having common mess.\t  It
\nis  stated  by\tPW-2  that  the\t respondent  was  a  chronic
\nalcoholic addict and used to come to his house in odd  hours
\nin  drunken  mood.  The respondent was also having  a  large
\ncircle of friends inclusive of one Mahesh Goyal, an Engineer
\nwith whom he used to spend his evenings.  This was  resented
\nby  the deceased who insisted the respondent to return\thome
\nearly.\t On  account  of this, there  used  to\tbe  frequent
\nquarrels between the spouses.\n<\/p>\n
     PW-5,  who is an independent and disinterested  witness
\nhas testified to the fact that while he was in service as  a
\nbearer\tin Victoria Bar at Saharanpur serving liquor to\t the
\ncustomers,  he had seen the respondent often  visiting\tthat
\nbar and taking wine.  He further states that on the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   826<\/span>
\nprevious  night, that is on the night of 11th  October\t1971
\nthe respondent came to the Bar at about 8 or 9 p.m. and\t was
\nthere  for half an hour drinking wine served by him  and  on
\nthe next early morning he heard about the occurrence.  It is
\nthe  evidence of PW-7 that after the marriage, the  deceased
\nused to visit his house\t and also sent letters.\t As per\t the
\nevidence  of PWs 2 and 7 some time after the  marriage,\t the
\nrelationship between the deceased and the respondent  became
\nstrained and discordant and on account of that, the deceased
\nwas  separately cooking her food on being compelled  by\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The  prosecution has marked two letters written by\t the
\ndeceased  Exts.\t Ka-3  and Ka-4 dated  18.9.71\tand  19.9.71
\nthrough PW-2.  In both these letters, the deceased had given
\na  brief note of the circumstances which ultimately  led  to
\nher  death stating that the respondent used to come  to\t the
\nhouse  in  odd hours in sozzled condition and  threaten\t her
\nlife;  that she would not resort to do anything to her\tlife
\nwhatever the harassment might be at the hands of her husband
\nand  that  if at all anything would happen to her  life,  it
\nwould  be  only\t at the hands of her husband.\tOf  the\t two
\nletters,  Ext. Ka-3 was addressed to PW-2 and  Ext.Ka-4\t was
\naddressed  to PW-7.  Besides, the respondent  disliking\t the
\ninterference  of  his  wife in his  private  activities\t and
\naffairs, went to the extent of even suspecting the  fidelity
\nof his wife.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t was  only in the above tragic\tcircumstances,\tthis
\nshocking and horrifying incident took place in the wee hours
\nof 12th October 1971. Admittedly, on the night of 11.10.1971
\nboth  the  husband  and wife (i.e. the\trespondent  and\t the
\ndeceased)  took their bed inside the room, allotted to\tthem
\nin  the first floor of the house.  On the next\tmorning,  on
\nseeing smoke coming out of the bed room in the scene house a
\nlarge number of neighbours and passers-by had gathered at the
\nscene  house.\tAt  about 7.30 a.m.  PW-2  and\this  brother
\nMamchand  arrived  there with `Ahoi Bayna’ in  baskets\tfrom
\nJagadhri.   PW-2 and his brother on seeing the crowd in\t the
\ncourtyard entertained a suspicion.  They were told that\t the
\nrespondent’s  wife had set fire to herself.  Thereupon\tPW-2
\nand his brother threw the `bayna’ in the courtyard, went  up
\nto the first floor and found the respondent standing  inside
\nthe  room  and the dead body of their sister  lying  on\t the
\nfloor  with  extensive burns all over her body.\t  When\tthey
\nconfronted  the\t respondent  as to what\t had  happened,\t the
\nrespondent  stated  that  they both had slept  well  on\t the
\nprevious night and that when he had gone to the latrine
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       827<\/span>
\nin the early morning, the deceased had committed suicide for
\nno  visible reason and that she by such act not only  ruined
\nherself but also spoiled his life.  PW-2 and his brother did
\nnot  believe the version of the respondent and shouted\tthat
\nthe  respondent had killed their sister.  A  quarrel  ensued
\nbetween\t them.\tBy that time PW-4 who came to the  up-stairs
\nfound  the respondent standing in his night-gown.  PW-4\t was
\ninformed  by  the  respondent that the\tdeceased  had  burnt
\nherself.\n<\/p>\n
     PW-3  who\twas the S.P. of that District  came  to\t the
\nscene  spot  at about 9.15 a.m., after directing  the  local
\npolice to come to the scene and found the respondent at\t the
\nscene.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t pointed out supra, there is no direct\tevidence  to
\nconnect\t the respondent with this offence of murder and\t the
\nprosecution  entirely rests its case only on  circumstantial
\nevidence.  There is a series of decisions of  this Court  so
\neloquently  and ardently propounding the cardinal  principle
\nto  be followed in cases in which the evidence is purely  of
\ncircumstantial\tnature.\t  We think, it is not  necessary  to
\nrecapitulate  all  those decisions except stating  that\t the
\nessential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by
\ncircumstantial evidence are:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)   The\tcircumstances from which the  conclusion  is
\n\t  drawn should be fully proved;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  the circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
\n     (3)  all the facts so established should be  consistent
\n\t  only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent
\n\t  with innocence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)   the circumstances should, to a  moral  certainty,
\n\t  exclude  the\tpossibility of guilt of\t any  person
\n\t  other than the accused.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Vide  Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh,<\/a> [1981]  1
\nSCC  511; Gambir v. State of Maharashtra, [1982] 2 SCC\t351;
\nEarabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, [1983] 2 SCC 330 and Ram
\nAvtar  v. State of Delhi Administration,<\/a> [1985] (Supp.)\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
410.
\n     Now  let  us  formulate  the  impelling   circumstances
\nattending the case and examine whether the cumulative effect
\nof  those  circumstances  negatives  the  innocence  of\t the
\nrespondent  and\t serves as a definite  pointer\ttowards\t his
\nguilt and unerringly leads to the conclusion that within all
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       828<\/span>
\nhuman\tprobability  the  offence  was\tcommitted   by\t the
\nrespondent alone and none else.\n<\/p>\n
     The  circumstances\t which\tare  established  as  having
\nclosely linked up with one another are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  The motive for the occurrence.
\n     (2)   The\troom  in  which\t this  tragic  and  pathetic
\n\t   incident   took   place  was\t in   the   exclusive
\n\t   possession  and occupation of the  respondent  and
\n\t   the deceased;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)   The occurrence had happened in the wee  hours  of
\n\t  12th\tOctober 1971 when no body would have got  an
\n\t  ingress  into\t the room wherein  the\thusband\t and
\nwife admittedly slept.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)  The evidence of PW-2, swearing that the respondent
\n\t  was found in the scene house at 7.15 a.m.
\n     (5)   The\tpresence of the respondent inside  the\troom
\n\t  wearing  night-gown  when PW-4 went to  the  scene
\n\t  room.\n<\/p>\n
     (6)  The position of the dead body lying on the  ground
\n\t  within a cot frame with extensive burns except  on
\n\t  the back and lumbar regions.\n<\/p>\n
     (7)   The presence of the traditional external  visible
\n\t  features of strangulation as well as the  internal
\n\t  injuries establish the use of violence.\n<\/p>\n
     (8)   The\tpositive opinion of PW-1 who  conducted\t the
\n\t  autopsy on the dead body of the deceased,  stating
\n\t  that\tthe death was due to strangulation  and\t the
\n\t  burns were post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n
     (9)   False  plea\tof  alibi and  the  conduct  of\t the
\n\t  respondent feigning innocence.\n<\/p>\n
     (10)   The\t intrinsic  value  of  the  inviolable\t and
\nimpergnable  evidence let in by the  prosecution  completely
\nand conclusively establishing the links of the entire  chain
\nof circumstances as a whole and not in fragments proving the
\nguilt of the respondent\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       829<\/span><\/p>\n
     While  the learned counsel appearing for the  appellant
\nstrenuously contended that the cumulative effect of all\t the
\npieces\tof circumstantial evidence brought on record by\t the
\nprosecution justifies the conviction of the  respondent, Mr.
\nR.L.  Kohli,  the learned senior counsel appearing  for\t the
\nrespondent took much pain in advancing his argument that the
\ncircumstances  relied  upon  by\t the  prosecution  are\t not
\nclinching the issue; that the presence of the respondent  at
\nthe  scene house at the time of the occurrence is  disproved
\nby  CWs 1 and 2 and also by the evidence of PWs 6 and 9\t who
\nhave  not  supported  the  prosecution\tcase  and  that\t the
\nsymptoms  found\t by  PW-1,the Medical  Officer\tare  not  in
\nsupport\t of the conclusion arrived at by PW-1 whose  opinion
\nis only attributable to his inexperience or negligence.\t  In
\nsupport\t of  his  submission, with regard  to  the   medical
\nevidence,  the\tlearned counsel drew our attention  to\tsome
\npassages   from\t  the\ttest  book   of\t  Taylor’s   Medical
\nJurispurdence and Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, about  which
\nwe will deal infra.\n<\/p>\n
We have already elaborately discussed the evidence  relating
\nto  the\t motive part of the occurrence and  found  that\t the
\nrespondent  who had married the deceased as his second\twife
\nhad not only entertained a suspicion about her fidelity, but
\nalso  was  repelling  the conduct of the  deceased  for\t her
\nfinding\t fault with his activities, affairs and\t association
\nwith his friends.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is not in dispute that on the ill fated night\tboth
\nthe  husband  and  wife\t (that is  the\trespondent  and\t the
\ndeceased)  took\t their bed in the room, which was  in  their
\nexclusive  use and that barring the duo no one was in  their
\nroom  and  that\t the deceased was found dead  in  the  early
\nmorning\t  notwithstanding  the reasons for her\tdeath.\t The
\ncase  of  the  prosecution is  that  the  respondent  caused
\nseveral anti-mortem injuries to the deceased and  ultimately
\nstrangulated  her  resulting  in her  death.   It  was\tonly
\nthereafter   the respondent sprinkled kerosene on  the\tdead
\nbody  and burnt it to cause disappearance of the evidence of
\nthe  offence of murder in order to screen himself  from\t the
\nlegal  punishment and that all the burn injuries  were\tonly
\npost-mortem injuries.\n<\/p>\n
     Seriously\t opposing  the\tprosecution   version,\t the
\nrespondent  has\t abjured his guilt stating that he  and\t his
\nwife  were having a happy marital life occupying  and  using
\nthe  room allotted to them in the first floor and  that\t the
\ndeceased  who  was  a woman of an  arrogant,  obstinate\t and
\nirritable
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       830<\/span>
\ntemperament   with   frequent  fluctuations  of\t  mood\t was
\ndispleased  with their mother-in-law, that  is\trespondent’s
\nmother,\t who did not like her independent way of  moving  in
\nthe  family  and  frequently  visiting\tcinema\thalls.\t The
\ndeceased had made complaints not only against his  mother-in\n<\/p>\n
-law, but also against her unmarried brother-in-law  stating
\nthat  her brother-in-law misbehaved with her, and  that\t she
\nwas writing letters to PWs 2 and 7 at the instance of  PW-7,
\nwho  had once in his letter addressed her as `Dear  Kamlesh’
\nand  incited her to write letters accusing  the\t respondent.
\nIt  is the further case of the respondent that in the  early
\nhours  of 12.10.1971 he at the request of PW-9 paid a  visit
\nto one Shashi’s house as the latter was suffering from\tsome
\nailments and that he returned at about 7.45 or 8.00 a.m.  to
\nhis  house and came to know about this incident.   According
\nto  him,  his  brothers\t poured\t water\tinto  the  room\t  to
\nextinguish  the\t fire.\t It is his  further  case  that\t the
\nbrothers  of  the deceased came to his house only  at  11.15
\na.m.,  that too on his telephonic information to  them.\t  He
\ncontinues  to  state  that the deceased used  to  feel\tpain
\nduring\tthe period of menses, that he took her on  6.10.1971
\nto  Dr. Mrs. Anstin and that on the advice and\tprescription
\ngiven  by  the\tDoctor Ext. Ka-9 the  deceased\twas  put  on
\nmedicine  containing barbiturates, the traces of which\twere
\nfound in her visra.  As regards the medical evidence he\t has
\ngiven  an  explanation\tthat  the  bones  could\t have\tbeen
\nfractured  due to excess heat and the death could have\tbeen
\non account of shock due to the burn injuries and that  PW-1,
\nthe  Medical Officer has given false evidence on account  of
\nsome heated exchanges between him and PW-1 over an  election
\nheld  among the medicos which took place about 2 or  3\tdays
\nbefore\tthe occurrence.\t The totality of the defence of\t the
\nrespondent  is that the deceased herself had created a\thell
\nof  her own  in the family and ultimately committed  suicide
\nby pouring kerosene on her and setting fire.\n<\/p>\n
     The above defence version of the respondent is  clearly
\nborne out from his statement given before the Trial Court on
\n6.10.1972.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t shall at the threshold proceed to deal\t with  rival
\ncontentions  of\t the parties regarding the  cause  of  death
\nwhich is a vital link in the chain of circumstances  serving
\nas  a  definite\t pointer  tending  to  prove  the  guilt  or
\notherwise of the respondent. PW-1 who conducted necropsy  on
\nthe body of the deceased has found the positive symptoms  of
\nsuicide\t and  the fracture of the 6th and 7th ribs  and\t the
\nright  cornua of the hyoid bone as well as the\tpresence  of
\nclotted blood on the right side of the neck in an area of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       831<\/span>
\n4cms.  X  3cms.\t  He also found the  congestion\t of  larynx,
\ntrachea and both the lungs.  It is his definite opinion that
\nthe death was due to strangulation  and the fractures on the
\nbody were ante-mortem.\tIn the supplementary report (Ext. Ka\n<\/p>\n
2),  he\t has  given his opinion that the  burns\t were  post-
\nmortem.\t  As regards the time of death he has stated in\t the
\ncross-examination  that\t the death could  have\toccurred  on
\n12.10.1971 between 7.00 A.M. and 8.00 A.M..  However, on re-
\nexamination  he\t clarifies  his\t answer\t stating  that\t the
\nprobable  time\tof death was subject to a margin of 2  to  4
\nhours on either side.  Though we have extracted the evidence
\nof  the\t Medical  Officer  in the  preceding  part  of\tthis
\njudgment,  we  would  like, at the  risk  of  repetition  to
\nreproduce  the\tevidence  of  PW-1  hereunder\tfor   better
\nappreciation  of  his opinion with regard to  the  cause  of
\ndeath:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Hands\t were clenched.\t Eyes and  conjunctive\twere
\n\t congested  and\t eye-balls  were  prominent.   Blood
\n\t mixed\tforth was coming out from nostrils.   Tongue
\n\t was  swollen  and  protruding\tand  was  compressed
\n\t between the teeth…………………………….
\n\t ……………………………………………
\n\t Sixth\tand seventh ribs were fractured.  The  right
\n\t cornua of hyoid bone was fractured.”\n<\/p>\n
     Though   PW-1  has\t been  subjected  to  incisive\t and
\nsearching cross-examination and questioned with reference to
\nvarious\t  Text\tBooks  on  Medical  Jurisprudence,   nothing
\ntangible has been brought out to discredit the testimony  of
\nPW-1.\tThe cross-examination was directed  suggesting\tthat
\nthe fracture of the hyoid bone and the fracture of the\tribs
\ncould have been due to the intensive heat of the fire and by
\nmishandling of the body when it was taken to downstairs.  In
\nfact, PW-1 has withstood the cross-examination and  affirmed
\nhis conclusion that the death was only\tdue to strangulation
\nand  the  burn\tinjuries were  post-mortem.   He  based\t his
\nopinion on the innumerable symptoms found on the dead  body,
\nsuch  as  the internal contusions,  non-vomitting  which  is
\nusually\t the symptom in a case of burning of a victim  while
\nalive and the involuntary non-movements of the deceased even
\nunder  the  agony  of fire etc. etc.   The  learned  defence
\ncounsel drew our attention to certain hypothetical opinions,
\ngiven  by PW-1 in the cross-examination, the report  of\t the
\nChemical  examiner, revealing the presence of the traces  of
\nbarbiturates in the visra and the pugilistic posture of\t the
\ndead body as revealed from the photographs of the dead\tbody
\nmarked as Exts. A, B,C and D and contended that the cause of
\ndeath could not have
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       832<\/span>
\nbeen  due  to strangulation, but it was due  to\t suicide  by
\npouring\t kerosene  and\tsetting\t herself  on  fire  and\t the
\nfractures of the bones and other symptoms found on the\tbody
\nshould\thave been due to the intensity of the heat and\tthat
\nthe  evidence  of PW-1 supporting  the\tprosecution  version
\ncannot and should not be accepted.  According to the learned
\ncounsel,  the  erroneous opinion, expressed by PW-1  on\t the
\navailable  data exposes his inexperience or negligence.\t  In
\nsupport\t of  his argument, he relied upon  certain  passages
\nfound in the textbooks on Medical Jurisprudence by  renowned
\nauthors.   In  Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence  and  Texicology
\n(21st Edition) at page 93 the following passage is found:
\n\t “When\t  exposed   to\t very\t high\t temperature
\n\t characteristically curved fractures may be produced
\n\t in long bones and skull.  A bone becomes so brittle
\n\t and friable on prolonged exposure of fire victim to
\n\t such  intense\theat that it  is  readily  fractured
\n\t incident to transport of body or its being moved or
\n\t under\texamination.   A hyoid\tbone  may  similarly
\n\t break on manipulation.”\n<\/p>\n
     In\t  Taylor’s  Principles\tand  Practice\tof   Medical
\nJurisprudence’, a detailed opinion is recorded by giving the
\nsymptoms  for determining whether the burns  were  sustained
\nbefore\tor  after  the\tdeath  of  a  victim  which  are  of
\nconsiderable  medical legal importance in cases of death  by
\nfire.\tAfter examining the evidence on record in the  light
\nof  the\t opinion  of the authors of  the  two  textbooks  on
\nMedical\t Jurisprudence,\t we  are unable to  agree  with\t the
\nsubmissions  of\t the defence counsel that all  the  symptoms
\nfound in the dead body could have been due to the  intensity
\nof  heat of the fire.  In fact, the opinion in the  Taylor’s
\nMedical\t  Jurisprudence\t  is  rather  in  support   of\t the
\nprosecution  case  than that of the defence,  which  opinion
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Not  uncommonly the victim who inhales smoke\talso
\n\t vomits\t and inhales some vomit, presumably  due  to
\n\t bouts\tof  coughing,  and  plugs  of\tregurgitated
\n\t stomach  contents mixed with soot may be  found  in
\n\t the smaller bronchi, in the depths of the lungs.”
\n     In\t the Present case, PW-1 has asserted that there\t was
\nno symptom of vomiting at all, which fact lends assurance to
\nthe prosecution case that the burning was after the death of
\nthe  victim.  According to the defence, water was poured  to
\nextinguish  the\t fire  inside  the  room,  but\tthe  medical
\nevidence shows that there was no blister on the body of\t the
\ndeceased, which
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       833<\/span>
\nfact disproves the defence version.  Moreover, all  external
\nand   internal\tsymptoms  in  addition\tto   the   fractures
\nunmistakably  go  to show that the death  was  by  homicidal
\nviolence,  but\tnot  due  to  suicidal\tone.   We  have\t  no
\ncompunction  in holding on the materials available that\t the
\ndeath could have been only due to strangulation as opined by
\nPW-1.  In fact, the Trial Court after examining the evidence
\nin detail has recorded its finding thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “The  result, therefore, is that Smt. Kamlesh\tdied
\n\t an unnatural death as a result of violence and\t was
\n\t in fact murdered and did not commit suicide.”
\n     Though  the High Court has acquitted the respondent  on
\nthe  ground  that  “the\t circumstances\tas  proved  are\t not
\nincompatible with innocence of the appellant”, it has agreed
\nin toto with the finding the Trial Court so far as the cause
\nof  death  is concerned and the finding of  the\t High  Court
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “We   are,  therefore,\t inclined  to\taccept\t the
\n\t statement of Dr. B.G. Mathur that the death of\t the
\n\t deceased was due to strangulation and that she\t was
\n\t set to fire after her death.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt has rejected the\tsubmissions  of\t the
\ndefence\t relating  to the cause of death  similar  to  those
\naddressed  before us as devoid of any substance.  There\t are
\ntwo  important features appearing from the medical  evidence
\nwhich  would go in support of our conclusion.\tThey  being:
\n(1)  that  the dead body was found inside the  scorched\t cot
\nframe,\t(2)  the  back portion of the  body  was  not  burnt
\nindicating  that  the deceased could not   have\t poured\t the
\nkerosene  over her body.  Further, had the deceased put\t her
\nto  death by burning herself she should\t have  involuntarily
\nmoved  hither and thither under the agony, and would not  be
\nlying  on her back motion-less.\t A careful scrutiny  of\t the
\nevidence  reveals  that\t there was no  sign  of\t involuntary
\nmovement  or any evidence of screaming and shrieking by\t the
\nvictim\twhile she was reeling under the terrible  shock\t and
\nagony  on being engulfed in flames which are not the  normal
\nsymptoms  in  a\t case  of this\tnature,\t leaving  apart\t the
\nquestion  of  homicide\tor  suicide.   The  traces  of\t the
\nbarbiturates  in  the  visra does not in  any  way  militate
\nagainst\t the  prosecution  case and  from  that\t no  adverse
\ninference could be drawn.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t regards  the motive, the High Court has  held\tthat
\nthere  was nothing to aggravate the situation on the day  of
\nthe occurrence for the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       834<\/span>
\nrespondent  to take this extreme measure of putting  her  to
\ndeath.\t  This\treasoning  of  the  High  Court\t  is   quite
\ninconceivable, for the simple reason that there could be  no
\nevidence as to what had happened during the night of 11\/12th
\nOctober 1971 as the victim herself is dead.  However, as  we
\nhave discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, all was
\nnot  well with the spouses and their  strained\trelationship
\nhad  been gaining momentum day by day and ultimately on\t the
\nill fated night it had culminated to this occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
     The  next\tpoint for our consideration is\twhether\t the
\nrespondent was present in the house in the early morning  of
\nthe  day  of occurrence or whether he had gone\tout  of\t the
\nhouse  to  treat  a patient.  In other\twords,\twhether\t the
\ndefence\t of alibi is true or not.  PW-2 states that  he\t saw
\nthe  respondent\t even at 7.15 a.m. when he had been  to\t the
\nscene  house  carrying snacks in a basket.  PW-4,  the\tHead
\nConstable was the first official to go to the scene house by
\nchance\ton seeing a crowd which was attracted by  the  acrid
\nsmoke,\temanating  from the bed room.  He testifies  to\t the
\nfact  that  at the time when he went to the house  at  about
\n8.00  a.m. he found the respondent standing inside the\troom
\nin his night dress and quarrelling with PW-2 over the  death
\nof  the\t deceased.   PW-3,  the\t Superintendent\t of  Police,
\narrived\t at  the  scene at about 9.15  a.m.  and  found\t the
\nrespondent  present.   Thus,  the evidence of  PWs  2  to  4
\npositively establishes the fact that the respondent was very
\nmuch present in the scene house, even in the early  morning,
\nfalsifying his plea of alibi.\n<\/p>\n
     The  case of the respondent that PW-2 and\this  brother
\narrived\t at  the scene only at 11.15 a.m., that too  on\t his
\ninformation is belied by the testimony of PWs 4 and 10.\t The
\nevidence of PW-4 is that PW-2 and his brother were found  in
\nthe  scene house even at 8.00 a.m.  PW-10 has  deposed\tthat
\nbaskets containing snacks and sweets were lying scattered in
\nthe  courtyard even at 8.30 a.m. which basket is  stated  to
\nhave been brought by PW-2.\n<\/p>\n
     If the respondent had returned from home after paying a
\nvisit  to  his patient by 8.00 a.m., as he  now\t claims,  he
\nwould not have been found in his night dress.  The very fact
\nthat  he  was  standing\t in his night  dress  at  8.00\ta.m.
\ndemonstrably  shows  that the respondent had  not  left\t the
\nhouse on his professional visit but he was very much present
\nin the house.  PW-6 (who was in service under the respondent
\nfor 4 year) and PW-9 who claims to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       835<\/span>
\nhave taken the respondent to attend on one Shashi have\tbeen
\ntreated as hostile witnesses.  CWs 1 and 2, who support\t the
\ndefence theory are none other than the mother and brother of
\nthe  respondent\t whose testimony is highly tainted.   On   a
\ncareful\t scanning  of their evidence, we hold that  no\tsafe
\nreliance  could be placed on their testimony  especially  in
\nview of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence  falsifying
\ntheir statements supporting the plea of alibi.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t an overall survey of the evidence, we are  in\tfull
\nagreement  with the observation of the Trial Court,  holding
\nthat  “his  explanation that he was not present in  the\t the
\nhouse  at the time is patently false”.\tThe High  Court\t has
\nplaced much reliance on the evidence of not only CWs 1 and 2
\nbut  also of the hostile witnesses PWs 6 and 9\tfor  holding
\nthat  the  respondent  was not in the  house  in  the  early
\nmorning,  which\t finding  of the High  Court  is  absolutely
\nuntenable and in utter disregard of the evidence.
\n    Even  though  we are not finding the  respondent  guilty
\nsolely\ton  his\t false\texplanation,  yet  that\t explanation
\nassumes\t much significance because it is for the  respondent
\nto come forward with an acceptable and plausible explanation
\nexplaining  the circumstances under which the  deceased\t had
\nmet  with  her end, since, in our  considered  opinion,\t the
\nrespondent  was in the company of his wife on  the  previous
\nnight and was found in the bed room in the early morning.\n<\/p>\n
     Though   the   respondent\thas   deliberately   feigned
\nignorance   and\t incredibly  denied  his   complicity,\t the
\noverwhelming persuasive circumstances attending the case and
\nthe  crucial  inculpatory evidence bear\t chilling  testimony
\nunmistakably proving the gruesome offence of murder and\t its
\ndiabolical  execution and unerringly establishing the  guilt
\nof the respondent beyond all reasonable doubts.\n<\/p>\n
     For   all\tthe  reasons  stated  above,  we,   on\t our
\nindependent  appraisal\tand evaluation of  the\tevidence  in
\naccordance  with  the principle laid down in  Chandra  Mohan
\nTiwari\tv.  State  of  madhya Pradesh,\tJT(1992)  1  SC\t 258
\nunhesitatingly\thold that the conclusion arrived at  by\t the
\nTrial Court is logical, tenable, and reasonably\t sustainable
\nand that the High Court after holding that the death of\t the
\ndeceased  was  homicidal  has gone wrong  in  recording\t the
\nimpugned  order\t of acquittal on erroneous  and\t incredulous
\nreasons.   Hence the judgment of the High Court\t has  become
\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       836<\/span><\/p>\n
     Mr.  Kohli, the learned counsel finally made a  fervent
\nbut  inexorable plea, submitting that since  the  occurrence
\ntook place in the year 1971 and that more than 14 years have
\nnow  elapsed since the delivery of the judgment by the\tHigh
\nCourt in October 1977, this court be pleased not to  disturb
\nthe  finding of acquittal at this length of time.   We\tgave
\nour  anxious consideration to the above submission,  but  we
\nfeel  that this plea has to be summarily rejected  when\t the
\nfacts  and  the\t impelling  circumstances  surrounding\t the
\npresent\t case  cry  for justice which in  turn\tdemands\t for
\nawarding  proper punishment according to law.  In our  view,
\nif  the\t impugned judgment of acquittal reversing  the\twell
\nreasoned  judgment  of\tthe  Trial  Court,  convicting\t the
\nrespondent is affirmed, it will be nothing but a mockery  of
\njustice\t and will also amount to prepetration of  gross\t and
\nirreparable  injustice.\t Moreover, when a judgment  appealed
\nagainst\t suffers  from\tillegality  or\tmanifest  error\t  or
\nperversity,  warranting an interference at the hands  of  an
\nAppellate  Court in the interest of justice  on\t substantial
\nand  compelling reasons, the mere delay in the\tdisposal  of
\nthe  said  appeal  will never serve as\ta  ground  for\tnon-
\ninterference  and on the other hand, the Appellate Court  is
\nduty bound to set at naught the miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the result, we set aside the judgment of  the\tHigh
\nCourt by allowing the State appeal and restore the  judgment
\nof the Trial Court convicting the  respondent under  Section
\n302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for\tlife
\nand  rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively  with  a
\ndirection that the sentences are to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       837<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 2045, 1992 SCR (2) 815 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: DR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/04\/1992 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, […]<\/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-110813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 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-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-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 Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 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-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-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=\"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-03T02:13:00+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=\"42 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-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-03T02:13:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992\"},\"wordCount\":6715,\"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-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-03T02:13:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-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 Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 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 Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 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-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-03T02:13:00+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":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992","datePublished":"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-03T02:13:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992"},"wordCount":6715,"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-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992","name":"State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-03T02:13:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-dr-ravindra-prakash-mittal-on-28-april-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 Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 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\/110813","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=110813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}