{"id":111202,"date":"1988-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988"},"modified":"2015-09-20T12:53:11","modified_gmt":"2015-09-20T07:23:11","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 CriLJ 1585<\/div>\n
Author: T Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: T Singh, R M Rustogi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER <\/p>\n
 T.N. Singh, J.<\/p>\n
1. The Death Reference and appeals by the convicts challenging the verdict rendered against them finding them guilty under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C., are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Although five persons were put up on trial, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, acquitted one of them, but finding the appellants guilty under Section 302, I.P.C., imposed on each of them death sentence in addition to a sentence of seven years’ R.I. under Section 201, I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
2. For the murder of two persons, named Rameshwar and Gabbar, each of the appellants had been charged separately under Section 302, I.P.C., the date of occurrence was given as 9-11-1984 specifying the place of occurrence, namely, field Akhepura on the bank of river Kwari, and the fact of strangulating and beheading the deceased. The frame of the charge amply reflects the dilemma which the prosecution had to face because of absence of any direct evidence of the occurrence. The investigation, it seems, started on a report being lodged at Dimni Police Station by P.W. 5 Mahesh Singh Bhadoriya that around noon, he came to notice two dead bodies lying near the river with heads cut off when he had gone to the field. Ex. P\/9 is the FIR which he had lodged on 9-11-1984 at about 6.20 in the evening at Dimni Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3. The appellants, it is not disputed, hailed from different villages and none of them, it is also not disputed, resided either where the dead bodies were found or in the village from which the two deceased persons hailed. Appellants Ramprakash, Mansaram, Sultansingh and Munnilal are said to be residents of village-Raghunathpur, Ramnagar, Umrao Ka Pura and Tutt Ka Pura respectively, albeit all under Police Station, Dimni. On the other hand, deceased Rameshwar and Gabbar hailed from village Dhanela under Police Station, Noorabad. Except that the two dead bodies which P.W. 5 had seen were headless, nothing else has to be read in his deposition or even in Ex. P\/9. In cross-examination though, P.W. 5 had to admit importantly that near the dead bodies, were also found a jersey, a towel, a pair of chappals, a pair of ropes and two books which the Police took away.\n<\/p>\n
4. To connect the loose ends of the prosecution story, we have to read, therefore, the evidence of the I.O., P.W. 21. He however, denied in his evidence that any article was seized from the place where dead bodies were found, as deposed to by P.W. 5. According to his evidence, the incriminating articles were found elsewhere and those were seized under separate seizure memos from different places. Ex, P\/8 is seizure memo of the towel. P. W. 20 Bhagwan Singh witnessed the seizure. He deposed that appellant Munnilal lived in his village, but nothing was seized from him. He was declared hostile. Other witnesses of seizure memo, Ex. P\/8, are P.Ws. 8 and 15, but they do not also support the prosecution case that on 16-12-1984, as per Ex. P\/8, any towel was seized from appellant Munnilal. Appellant Munnilal was arrested on 12-12-1984. Appellant Ramprakash was arrested on 7-12-1984 and as per Ex. P\/43-A, one jersey and also one yellow chadra were recovered from him on the same day. P.W.18 Ram Niwas, is said to have witnessed the seizure, but it is mentioned in Ex. P\/43-A that he hailed from village Bare-Ka-Pura under Police Station Banmore though the seizure is said to have taken place at village Raghunathpur under Police Station Dimni. He is said to have witnessed also seizure memo Ex. P\/41-A under which on 7-12-1984, from the possession of one Phul Singh (not examined), some more articles were seized, namely, one blanket, one Dhoti, one bag, one cotton Shirt and one terrycot shirt in village Kadaman-Ka-Pura. On his own admission, P. W. 13 was a chance-witness who deposed that he was proceeding to his own village from village Lahar when he was called by the Daroga and he admitted that Kadaman-Ka-Pura was 8 K.Ms. from Dimni Police Station to which he was called by the Daroga.\n<\/p>\n
5. According to I.O. P.W. 21, though he visited the place of occurrence on 9-11-1984, at about 7.00 p.m., one missing head was recovered on 10-11-1984 and that was of Gabbar Singh. He sent both dead bodies and the severed head for post-mortem examination. He also deposed that at the place of occurrence, he seized bloodstained earth and also a piece of half-burnt cloth and some earth, Dimni Police Station, he said, was about 5 kms. from that place. Almost a month later, he arrested appellants Sultansingh, Ramprakash and Mansaram, on 7-12-1984. His evidence is that when they disclosed to him that they had kept concealed certain articles at different places, he recorded their statements under Section 27, Evidence Act, and proceeded in an official vehicle, with two witnesses, to seize the same. At Mansaram’s behest one Phulsingh produced at village Kadman-Ka-pura some articles. That village was 25\/30 kms. from Dimni P. S. At Raghunathpura, 20 Kms from that place, he is said to have seized from Ramprakash’s house some more articles and then at a distance of 3 kms. from that place he seized some more articles from appellant Sultansingh’s house at Umrao-ka-Pura. Though he denied the suggestion that the seizures were spurious as those articles had been taken away earlier by the Police from the river bank and were with them, we find much merit in the suggestion. It has to be appreciated in the light of the other circumstances too. It is difficult to accept hop and jump seizures portrayed in evidence; three accused and two witnesses accompanying the I.O. in police vehicle from place to place and within four hours all seizures being made, albeit without any inhabitant of different localities witnessing the same.\n<\/p>\n
5A. Gabbar’s dead body was identified, the I.O. said, on the same day as his name was tattooed on his hand. Rameshwar’s dead body could be identified on the next day. Another loose end of the prosecution story can be read at this point in the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 11 and 12. The first two are widow and son respectively of deceased Rameshwar while the latter two are brothers of deceased Gabbar. They were informed by the police about the dead bodies but they deposed that appellant Mansaram was seen the previous day with Rameshwar and Gabbar, who were proceeding with him to Ramsingh-ki-garhi. However, doubt being entertained about Mansaram’s identity he was put on test identification parade, albeit after a month of his arrest.\n<\/p>\n
6. We have little doubt that the material objects seized form mainly the hard core of the circumstantial evidence on which conviction of each of the appellants rests. It would, therefore, be necessary to examine also the evidence on the identification of the article seized as that provides the only link between alleged murders and their authors although it has to be further examined if and to what extent the recoveries were actually made at the instance of the appellants. We propose, therefore, to examine separately the case of each appellant with respect to the twin circumstances of recovery and identification.\n<\/p>\n
7. We will take up first the case of appellant Munnilal. He was arrested on 12-12-1984 and his statement under Section 27, Evidence Act was recorded on 16-12-1984. Ex. P\/7 is that statement, witnessed by P.W. 3 Sudharsingh and P.W. 15 Triloksingh. In their evidence, both witnesses denied of any recovery of any article being made at the instance of appellant Munnilal P.W. 21 (I.O.) did not also prove other signatures, except his own, recorded in Ex. P\/7. When Munnilal was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C., neither the seizure memo, Ex. P\/8, nor his statement under Section 27, Evidence Act, Ex.P\/7, were put to him. On the sole testimony of I.O., recovery of the towel at the instance of appellant Munnilal four days after his arrest is difficult to believe particularly when it has come on. evidence through P.W. 5 that one towel and some articles were found lying at the place of occurrence which Police had taken away, and the prosecution did not care to explain why those articles were not formally seized. Indeed, the I.O. has not made any positive statement that those articles to which P.W. 5 referred in his deposition were not found at the place of occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 5, thus, stood unrebutted indenting seriously the credibility of prosecution’s case that those articles were seized at different places other than the place of occurrence and at the instance of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
8. The next question is of identification of the articles and indeed first of the towel by which appellant Munnilal is bought to be connected with the crime. On that, the important fact to be noted is the inordinate delay of 18 days which occurred between the alleged seizure of the towel and the same being put up to test identification. P.W. 10, A. K. Bandil, Naib Tahsildar, Sabalgarh, held test identification of the seized articles. He proved identification memo, Ex. P\/12 which he had prepared. Two persons, Hakim Singh and Raj Bahadur are said to have identified the towel, but they have not been examined. That apart, P.W. 10 categorically stated that none of the witnesses could give any reason or ground in establishing the identity of different articles. He further deposed that he had not recorded in the identification memo the colour and other particulars of other articles which were mixed with incriminating articles. In this connection, reliance is rightly placed on a decision recently rendered by us in Niran’s case, 1988 Jab LJ 505. How test identifications are to be held and of what value the evidence of identification is, was considered by us in that case. Relying on the Apex Court’s decision in Matru’s case  it was held that if delay in test identification is not explained, it could seriously taint the evidence of identification. It was also held that seized articles were to be mixed with other articles of same type so that there is no scope for the witness to pick up and choose incriminating articles from others of similar type. Whether the seized article had any distinctive mark by which it could be identified should have been known to the witness and that fact he should disclose to officer holding the test identification. What is really surprising is that two brothers of deceased Gabbar Singh, P.Ws. 11 and 12 had failed to identify before the Naib Tahsildar, the towel seized as per Ex. P\/8 by which appellant Munnilal is connected with the crime and yet, by that towel, appellant Munnilal has to be hanged as per verdict rendered by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
9. There can be no doubt that identification of the towel by P.Ws. 11 and 12 in Court would be of no value when the positive evidence as per Ex. P\/12 is that those two witnesses could not identify the towel at test identification. Although seizure itself of the towel has been rendered doubtful as all the three seizure memo witnesses, P.Ws. 3, 15 and 20, disowned their association with that enterprise of the I.O., the very fact that the towel could not be proved to be one which deceased Gabbar had on his person when he had left his home, totally destroys prosecution’s case against appellant Munnilal. None of the brothers of deceased Gabbar, P.W. 11 or 12, had even deposed categorically that Gabbar was carrying the towel with him when he had left his home. P.W. 12 deposed candidly that he could learn from his mother that his brother, deceased Gabbar, had left with Rameshwar for Ramsingh Garhi. Apparently, he could not have, therefore, seen Gabbar leaving his home. Although P.W. 11 deposed that he met deceased Gabbar and Rameshwar coming together, he did not still depose that Gabbar had on his person the towel which the Police had seized as per Ex. P\/8.. There is apparently no evidence worth a scratch even, against appellant Munnilal; and his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
10. In so far as the other three appellants are concerned, we may deal first with the case of appellants Ramprakash and Dr. Sultansingh as against them also, the only evidence is of recovery and seizure of certain incriminating articles. Their case is of the same nature as that of the appellant Munnilal. As per Ex. P\/40, these two appellants were arrested along with appellant Mansaram, but the time, date and place of their arrest is not mentioned in the memo of arrest. P.W. 13, Ramniwas, had witnessed Ex.P\/40, but in his evidence, it is only disclosed that he found the three accused appellants at Police Station, Dimni; and there he had affixed his signature to Ex. P\/40. In his deposition, the I.O. (P.W. 21) has not explained on what information or basis arrest of the said three appellants was made and indeed, how and where they were apprehended has been totally left in dark. What is also disclosed in the evidence of the I.O. and P.W. 13 is that on the date of the arrest itself all the three arrested accused had made separate statements under Section 27, Evidence Act as per Exs. P\/41 (by Mansaram), P\/42 (by Sultansingh) and P\/ 43 (by Ramprakash). Indeed, on the same date, recoveries were made from them as per Exs. P\/41-A, 42-A and 43\/A respectively. The same witness, P.W. 13, played a leading role in the case of these three appellants by witnessing all the documents herein mentioned. Be it noted here that from three places the recoveries were made, Kadaman-ka-pura, Raghunathpur and Umrao-Ka-Pura; and those places were separated by distance of 20 K.Ms. and 3 K.Ms. respectively.\n<\/p>\n
11. Seizures evidenced by Exs. P\/41-A, 42\/A and 43\/A, according to us, must be regarded doubtful for the singular reason that the seizures were not made in accordance with the salutary provisions of Section 100(4), Cr. P.C. There is a clear breach in the case of each of the seizures of the statutory safeguard which requires “two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality” to be called to witness the seizure made under the Code. The prosecution has not come forward with any explanation as to why the provisions of Section 100(4) could not be complied with. We have already noted that P.W. 13 | was a chance-witness, an outsider and a foreigner to each of the three places of seizure, who had been called to the Police Station, Dimni, by the I.O. It is in his evidence as also in the evidence of the I.O. that this witness accompanied the I.O. in the Police vehicle and he became instrumental in the exercise carried out by the I.O. evidenced in Exs. P\/40, P\/41, P\/41-A, P\/42, P\/42-A, P\/43 and P\/43-A. One of us (Dr. T. N. Singh, J.) had an occasion to consider the effect of breach of the provisions of Section 100, Cr. P.C. in the case of State of Assam v. Gopi Kishan Taperia<\/a> (1985) 1 Gauhati LR 193 when, speaking for the Division Bench, he had observed that when the provisions of Section 100(4) were breached, burden lay on the prosecution to explain reasons for non-compliance thereof. This view was taken after taking into consideration the holdings of the Apex Court in Radha Kishan’s case ; Bai Radha’s case ; Subbayya’s case , and State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal<\/a> . It was held that necessity of saddling the prosecution with the burden to justify the breach of the salutary provision of Section 100(4), Cr. P.C. flowed from the Constitutional requirement of “reasonable procedure” inscribed in Article 21 of the Constitution which enjoined a positive duty on the Court to carefully and judicially : screen the evidence of search and seizure in the light of the relevant legal provisions in a case where on the evidence of articles seized, the accused was liable to be convicted for any offence. On our own, we would like to add further that rigour of the requirement contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 100, Cr. P.C. is buttressed by that of Sub-section (8). While Sub-section (4) casts a duty on the “Officer” to make search in the manner provided therein, under Sub-section (8), any person who refuses when he is called to witness a search is made liable to conviction under Section 187, I.P.C. Therefore, the duty of the “Officer” making the search to call “two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality” has to be deemed inexorable and failure to perform the duty must be deemed to vitiate the search made in violation thereof unless explanation is furnished by the Officer concerned to justify the violation.\n<\/p>\n
12. We have also grave doubt if we can place any reliance on the two statements of accused appellants Ramprakash and Sultansingh, said to have been made under Section 27, Evidence Act, recorded as per Exs. P\/42 and P\/43. The trial Court has admitted in evidence the portion of statement Ex. P\/43 of appellant Ramprakash that it was deceased Gabbar Singh’s jersey and that the yellow Chadra was of deceased Rameshwar which he had kept at his house in a box. In Prabhoo v. State of U.P. , we read an express prohibition against such an exercise. It was held in that case that the statement of the accused that the blood-stained Shirt and Dhoti belonged to him or that the axe recovered had been used in committing the crime, were inadmissible. To that extent, admissibility of the statement of appellant Sultansingh, made in Ex. P\/42-A, is likewise tainted. That apart, we are also of the view that both the appellants Sultansingh and Ramprakash ought to have been cautioned about their statements made in Exs. P\/42 and P\/43 when they were examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. in order to give them reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing therein against them.\n<\/p>\n
13. At the trial, in this case, surprisingly, the same sets of questions were prepared with respect to the several accused persons and each of the accused was asked in a general way as to what they had to say to the recoveries attributed to them. It does not appear from the examination made by the trial Judge of appellants Ramprakash and Sultansingh that they were confronted either with the material object specifically or with the statements made by them, admitted in evidence against them. Indeed, the practice of drawing up a common set of questions against several accused in a case of joint trial has been deprecated by this Court in Patange’s case, long ago (see, 1985 Cut Cri. J (MP) 291). It is high time that trial Courts are alive to their responsibilities and duties, particularly in the matter of examining accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the importance of which safeguard has been stressed by the Apex Court repeatedly and consistently over the last 3 1\/2 decades. (See-Hate Singh ; Shamu Balu ; Harijan Megha Jesha  and Sharad . We have already held in Niran’s case (1988 Jab LJ 505) (supra) that the fact of recovery at the instance of an accused under Section 27, Evidence Act has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like any other fact by reliable witnesses. Indeed, if the seizure of articles said to be recovered from appellants Sultansingh and Ramprakash as per Ex. P\/42 and P\/43-A failed, the statements attributed to them as per Exs. P\/42 and P\/43 would not avail the prosecution on the holding in Prabhoo’s (1963 (2) Cri LJ 182) (SC) (supra) itself as to the settled law that unless in fact any lawful seizure of any object is made, the mere statement under Section 27, Evidence Act can prove nothing. (See e.g., Jageshwar  etc.).\n<\/p>\n
14. The only distinguishing feature of the case against appellant Dr. Sultansingh is that witnesses have given evidence that the appellant and deceased Gabbar were not on good terms. P.W. 7 Vaijanti, wife of deceased Rameshwar even went so far as attributing to appellant Sultansingh malice against her husband as well. In her evidence, she stated that she suspected Sultansingh to be the culprit as there was some dispute between him and her uncle-in- law. She also gave evidence that deceased Gabbar had given a beating to Sultan. Her uncle-in-law (P.W. 9, Ochhe) was also examined. He deposed that there was a litigation concerning possession of a house between him and deceased Sultansingh which was still continuing. In his evidence, deceased Gabbar’s brother, P.W. 11, deposed that Sultansingh was given a beating by Gabbar 3\/4 months before the date of occurrence. We do not think that the trifle, stale incident of beating or even the protracted civil litigation could be accepted as motive of the crime to implicate Sultansingh in the murder of deceased Gabbar and Rameshwar. On the other hand, it appears to us that Sultansingh may have been implicated on suspicion and on account of enmity between him and the witnesses. If we have to say any thing more on this aspect of prosecution’s case, let it be remembered that motive is a double-edged weapon and as such, the enmity may be rather the motive for falsely implicating appellant Sultansingh.\n<\/p>\n
15. We propose now to deal with the case of the remaining appellant Mansaram against whom there is the same type of evidence of recovery and seizure, but additionally, there is also the evidence of the type of “last seen together”. In so far as the evidence of recovery and seizure is concerned, we would have little to say as that evidence is similarly tainted, but we have to say first a few words on the other aspect of the evidence, namely that of “last seen together”. In this connection, we have to read not only the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 11 and 12, but also consider the important fact as to what value should the identification of appellant Mansaram in test identification parade carry with the Court as he was put in the parade 27 days after his arrest. Such belated identification, it has been held judicially, is of no value. (See Niran’s case (1988 Jab LJ 505), Supra; Bali Ahir ; Ram Charan, 1960 Jab LJ 1980 etc.). P.W. 8 who identified Mansaram in the test identification parade, held on 2-1-1985 (though he was arrested on 7-12-1984), however, deposed that he had been to Jail to identify the accused only five days of his father’s death. This clearly shows that he was taken to jail and the said appellant was shown to him before the parade was held. Although P.W. 11 is also said to have identified the appellant in the test parade, we do not think if we can rely even on his evidence because of what he stated in his evidence. Although he deposed that he had seen appellant Mansaram in the company of deceased Gabbar and Rameshwar, he was caught in the wrong foot in the cross-examination. He gave the date as full-moon night in the month of Agahan, while the prosecution’s case is that on or about 8-11-1984, deceased Gabbar and Rameshwar had left together for Ramsingh Garhi in the company of appellant Mansaram and that was the month of Kartik according to Indian calendar, not Agahan. Indeed, it could not be the prosecution’s case that any of the witnesses had known from before appellant Mansaram as the test identification parade was held for the purpose of his identification. Reading the evidence of the other two witnesses P.W. 7 Vaijanti and P.W. 12 Ajab Singh, it appears clear that they had not known Mansaram and they had not seen Mansaram accompanying deceased Gabbar and Rameshwar. If identification of appellant Mansaram is held doubtful, then there can be no evidence against him of his being seen last in the company of the two deceased persons.\n<\/p>\n
16. As against appellant Mansaram, Ex. P\/44 is proved as his statement under Section 27, Evidence Act in which he is said to have stated that the articles had been kept by him in the house of one Phulsingh, but that Phulsingh has not been examined despite the fact that his name appears in the seizure memo, Ex. P41-A. Indeed, if it was Phulsingh who had produced the incriminating articles, as appears clear from Ex. P\/41-A, then the statement of appellant Mansaram as per Ex. P\/41-A under Section 27, Evidence Act would have no value. There can be no doubt that Phulsingh was the crucial witness and on his testimony only, admissibility of appellant’s statement made under Section 27 as per Annexure P\/41 could be sustained. But, no reason or explanation is given for his non-examination. Besides, no value can be attached to the two documents Exs. P\/41 and P\/41-A when the same witness P.W. 13, Ramniwas figured therein and no explanation is forthcoming as to why no independent and respectable persons of the locality of Kadaman-Ka-Pura was called to witness the seizure as per Ex. P\/41-A. We have already observed earlier that if the seizure goes, there would be no discovery of any “fact” within the meaning of Section 27, Evidence Act and on that ground itself, Ex. P\/41 would be rendered valueless.\n<\/p>\n
17. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no doubt that against appellant Mansaram also, there is no reliable and acceptable evidence to hold him guilty for the murder of the two deceased persons Gabbar and Rameshwar. The entire evidence in this case, as we have seen, is circumstantial. In Niran’s case (1988 Jab LJ 505) (supra), we had to consider the same question of conviction based on circumstantial evidence. We had an occasion to advert to “five golden principles” enunciated by the Apex Court in Sharad’s case (1984 Cri LJ 1738) (SC) (supra) to take the view that chain of circumstances must be complete and must exclude every possible hypothesis except that which proves the guilt of the accused persons. In the instant case, except the tainted evidence of seizure and recovery against all appellants, no other link of the chain is proved. In appellant Mansaram’s case, the third link of the evidence of “last seen together”, we have already discarded because of tainted evidence of his identification. It is, therefore, difficult to take the view in this case that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in any manner. Whatever evidence has been produced is found tainted and what is not produced leaves a large gap to link the accused appellants with the crime with which they are charged That being the state of affairs of evidence, we do not propose to say anything on the nature of the charge framed against each of the accused appellants. Suffice it to observe this much only that without the aid of Section 120B, on the basis of materials collected in the investigation, it may not have been possible even to put them on trial.\n<\/p>\n
18. In the premises aforesaid, we have no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to bring home to the accused the offence not only of Section 302, IPC, but even of Section 201 IPC inasmuch as we have held as tainted the evidence of seizure in respect of articles said to have been recovered at the instance of the four appellants.\n<\/p>\n
19. In the result, the Reference is rejected. All the three appeals are allowed. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other offence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 CriLJ 1585 Author: T Singh Bench: T Singh, R M Rustogi ORDER T.N. Singh, J. 1. The Death Reference and appeals by the convicts challenging the verdict rendered against them finding them guilty under Sections 302 […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - 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-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-20T07:23:11+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\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T07:23:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\"},\"wordCount\":4635,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T07:23:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988\"}]},{\"@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 Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - 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-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-20T07:23:11+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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988","datePublished":"1988-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T07:23:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988"},"wordCount":4635,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T07:23:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramprakash-and-ors-on-5-october-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988"}]},{"@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\/111202","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=111202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}