{"id":11339,"date":"1999-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999"},"modified":"2019-03-22T01:45:29","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T20:15:29","slug":"arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Mohapatra.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nARVIND\tPAPPU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/05\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.  THOMAS, D.P.  MOHAPATRA.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>MOHAPATRA.  J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal filed by the accused is directed against<br \/>\nthe judgment and order\tpassed\tby  the\t learned  Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge,\t Delhi\tin Sessions Case No.  1\/86 which was<br \/>\nconfirmed by the Delhi High Court  in  Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n149\/8.\t &#8216;Both the Courts found him guilty of the offence of<br \/>\nmurder punishable under section 302 IPC\t and  sentenced\t him<br \/>\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  lure  of a job proved fatal for Ajaib Singh the<br \/>\ndeceased.  The appellant Arvind @  Pappu  and  the  deceased<br \/>\nAjaib Singh being co-villagers were known to each other.  In<br \/>\nthe  year  1978 there had been some friction between the two<br \/>\nfamilies and on the basis of a report lodged  by  father  of<br \/>\nthe  appellant\ta  criminal  case  was initiated against the<br \/>\ndeceased and his brother.  The case, however,  ended  in  an<br \/>\norder of acquittal passed in the year 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe deceased was employed in a factory at  Sahibabad<br \/>\nwhere  another\tco-villager Kamlesh Kumar PW 8 used to work.<br \/>\nOn 31st March 1985 the appellant had paid  a  visit  to\t the<br \/>\nhouse  of  Kamlesh  Kumar where Ajaib Singh was also putting<br \/>\nup.  The appellant persuaded the deceased to come  with\t him<br \/>\nto  Delhi promising to get him (deceased) a job as a driver.<br \/>\nBefore leaving for Delhi they  had  seen  off  Vijay  Ranjan<br \/>\nPW-9, nephew of the deceased, at the bus stand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe next phase of the occurrence took place  on\t the<br \/>\nbusiness  premises  of\tM\/s  Rajesh Enterprises at Sultanpur<br \/>\nMazra, Delhi, which is a firm engaged in tailoring business.<br \/>\nAt about 9.00 p.m.    on  31st\tMarch,\t1985  the  appellant<br \/>\naccompanied by\tthe  deceased  arrived\tat  that place.\t The<br \/>\nappellant introduced the deceased to the  employees  working<br \/>\non the\tpremises  as his friend.  The deceased was under the<br \/>\ninfluence  of  liquor;\ttherefore,  with  a  view  to\tmake<br \/>\narrangement  for putting him to rest the appellant asked the<br \/>\nother employees to stop working\t and  leave  the  room.\t   A<br \/>\ntemporary  bed\twas  made on the cutter&#8217;s table lying in the<br \/>\nroom and the deceased was made to sleep on  it.\t   On  being<br \/>\nasked by the appellant the workers left the room leaving the<br \/>\nappellant and  the  deceased  together\tin the room.  On the<br \/>\nnext morning when Anil Kumar PW-2 went to the room he  found<br \/>\nthe  deceased  lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on<br \/>\nhis neck, a pair  of  blood  stained  scissors\tand  a\ttape<br \/>\nstained\t with  blood lying near the body and blood stains at<br \/>\ndifferent places in the\t room.\t  The  appellant  was  found<br \/>\nmissing from  the  premises.  It may be stated here that the<br \/>\nappellant remained untraced for about  one  and\t half  years<br \/>\nafter  the incident, from 1.4.85 till October, 1986, when he<br \/>\nsurrendered after the case  was\t committed  to\tthe  Session<br \/>\nCourt and warrant was issued for his arrest.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe police  was\t informed.   Statement of Anil Kumar<br \/>\n(Exh.PW-2\/A) was recorded.  A formal FIR  (Exh.PW-12\/C)\t was<br \/>\nregistered at about 10.10 a.m.\tThe dead body was identified<br \/>\nto  be\tof  Ajaib Singh by his brother Jagdish Chander PW-7.<br \/>\nIt was sent for post-mortem examination which was  conducted<br \/>\nby Dr.\t Bharat\t Singh PW-5.  The Doctor found one irregular<br \/>\nlacerated wound in  the\t front\tmiddle\tarea  1&#8243;x1\/4&#8243;xl-1\/2&#8243;<br \/>\nwhich  had cut the common carotid artery and jugular vein on<br \/>\nthe left side.\tAs stated  by  the  doctor  the\t injury\t was<br \/>\nsufficient  in\tthe ordinary course of nature to cause death<br \/>\nand could be caused by the scissors (Ex.P-1) found besmeared<br \/>\nwith blood at the place of occurrence.\tThe  doctor  further<br \/>\nopined that the probable time of death was around 2 a.m.  on<br \/>\n1st April 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  prosecution  brought  on  record  the different<br \/>\ncircumstances reading to the death of the deceased,  through<br \/>\nthe  workers  engaged in the tailoring factory namely Jaspal<br \/>\nPW-1, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3,  Daulat  Ram  PW-4,\t Ram<br \/>\nPrasad\tPW-6  and Gaya Prasad PW-&#8217;18 who were present on the<br \/>\npremises of M\/s Rajesh Enterprises  on\tthe  fateful  night.<br \/>\nAll  of them consistently supported the prosecution case the<br \/>\ngist  of  which\t has  been  discussed\tin   the   foregoing<br \/>\nparagraphs.   In  their\t testimony  the\t witnesses have also<br \/>\nstated that during the night they had not heard any  cry  of<br \/>\nthe deceased nor any sound of scuffle from the room in which<br \/>\nthe appellant  and  the\t deceased  were sleeping.  It may be<br \/>\nnoted here that there is no material on record to show\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was any mark of scuffle or struggle in the room where<br \/>\nthe body of the deceased was found lying.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhen the circumstances appearing from  the  evidence<br \/>\nof  the\t witnesses  were  put  to  him\tthe appellant, while<br \/>\nadmitting that he had gone to the house of Kamlesh Kumar and<br \/>\nhad met the deceased, denied his involvement in any incident<br \/>\nleading to   the   death   of\tthe   later.\t  From\t the<br \/>\ncross-examination  of  the  prosecution witnesses it appears<br \/>\nthat initially the appellant took a false stand that he\t had<br \/>\nno  concern  with  the tailoring business at Sultanpur Majra<br \/>\nbut subsequently changed his stand and admitted that he\t had<br \/>\ninvested money in the business.\t It is relevant to note that<br \/>\nthere  are  materials on record to show that he had opened a<br \/>\nbank account with Traders Bank in the  name  of\t M\/s  Rajesh<br \/>\nEnterprises and had invested money for purchase Of machinery<br \/>\nand other materials used for tailoring business.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned  Addl.    Sessions\tJudge  in a detailed<br \/>\nscrutiny of the evidence found the  following  circumstances<br \/>\nto have been duly established by the prosecution :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) Enmity of the deceased with the accused as a  result  of<br \/>\ntheir past litigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) Accused went to Sahibabad and took the deceased with him<br \/>\nto Delhi to get him a job.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  The  accused  went\t with the deceased to his factory at<br \/>\nRajesh Enterprises, village Sultanpur  Majra  in  a  drunken<br \/>\nstate and he was last seen with the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)  The conduct of the accused in absconding thereafter and<br \/>\nnot being in the factory on the morning when the body of the<br \/>\ndeceased was found; and<\/p>\n<p>(e) On the next day he went  to\t Maharban  Singh  despite  a<br \/>\nsleepless night preceding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe   learned  Trial  Judge  has  given\t cogent\t and<br \/>\nconvincing reasons for placing reliance on the testimony  of<br \/>\nthe prosecution\t witnesses.   He has decided the case on the<br \/>\ntouch-stone of the well.  recognised principles for  proving<br \/>\nthe   prosecution  case\t based\tentirely  on  circumstantial<br \/>\nevidence.  He has also taken into account the fact  that  no<br \/>\nother  person  either from amongst the prosecution witnesses<br \/>\nor anybody else associated with the tailoring  business\t had<br \/>\nany motive  to\tkill  the deceased.  Placing reliance on the<br \/>\nratio of Balwinder Singh Vs.  State of Punjab (AIR  1987  SC\n<\/p>\n<p>350)  the  trial  judge\t held  that the case fell within the<br \/>\nthirdly clause of section 300 of the IPC and therefore,\t the<br \/>\naccused\t must be held guilty of the offence punishable under<br \/>\nsection 302 IPC.  He ordered accordingly,<\/p>\n<p>\tOn appeal the High Court on assessing  the  material<br \/>\nevidence   laid\t  by   the   prosecution   summed   up\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances, found against the appellant in the  following<br \/>\nwords :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The  prosecution  evidence  is\t clear,\t cogent\t and<br \/>\nconvincing.   The  appellant  was  having  interest  in\t the<br \/>\nbusiness being\trun at the place of occurrence.\t He had been<br \/>\nvisiting the factory.  On March, 31, 1985, the appellant met<br \/>\nAjalb Singh in the presence of Vijay Ranjan (PW-9) and asked<br \/>\nhim to come to Delhi.  He assured him a job in Delhi.\tBoth<br \/>\nof  them  were\tlast seen by Vijay Ranjan waiting for a bus.<br \/>\nThereafter the same day at about 9.OO p.m.    the  appellant<br \/>\nbrought Ajaib  Singh to his factory.  Ajaib Singh was drunk.<br \/>\nThe appellant made him lie on the cutter&#8217;s table  and  asked<br \/>\nall the\t workers  to  stop work and to go to sleep.  All the<br \/>\nworkers left leaving  behind  only  the\t appellant  and\t the<br \/>\ndeceased in that  room.\t   That\t room  had  a shutter.\tNext<br \/>\nmorning at about 8 a.m.\t when Anil Kumar (PW-2)\t opened\t the<br \/>\nshutter\t he  found Ajaib Singh lying dead in a pool of blood<br \/>\nand the appellant missing.  The murder had been committed at<br \/>\nabout 2 a.m.  The appellant surrendered in court after about<br \/>\none year and six months.  This is the chain of events.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court agreed with the conclusion  drawn  by<br \/>\nthe trial Court that the prosecution has successfully proved<br \/>\nthe  case of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC against<br \/>\nthe appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe standard of proof required to convict  a  person<br \/>\non  circumstantial  evidence  is  now  well established by a<br \/>\nseries of decisions of this Court According to that standard<br \/>\nthe circumstances relied.  upon in support of the conviction<br \/>\nmust  be  fully\t established  and  the\tchain  of   evidence<br \/>\nfurnished  by those circumstances must be so complete as not<br \/>\nto leave any reasonable ground for a  conclusion  consistent<br \/>\nwith the  innocence  of the accused.  The circumstances from<br \/>\nwhich the conclusion of the guilt as to be  drawn  have\t not<br \/>\nonly   to  be  fully  established  but\talso  that  all\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances so  established  should  be  of  a  conclusive<br \/>\nnature\tand consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt<br \/>\nof the accused and should not be capable of being  explained<br \/>\nby any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and<br \/>\nwhen  all  the\tcircumstances  cumulatively  taken  together<br \/>\nshould lead to the only\t irresistible  conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\naccused alone  is  the perpetrator of the crime.  To quote a<br \/>\nfew decisions of this Court in this regard reference may  be<br \/>\nmade to\t the  case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.  State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra 1964 (4) SCC 116; Balwinder Singh Vs.  State  of<br \/>\nPunjab AIR &#8216;987 SC 350; Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana Vs.<br \/>\nState  of  West\t Bengal\t 1994  (2)  SCC 220; Laxman Naik Vs.<br \/>\nState of Orissa 1994(3) SCC 381 and Brijlala Pd.  Sinha\t Vs.<br \/>\nState of Bihar 1998(5) SCC 699.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNow we come to the question whether the evidence  in<br \/>\nthe  case  on  hand  satisfies the principles and tests laid<br \/>\ndown in the aforementioned decisions.\t We  nave  carefully<br \/>\nperused\t the  judgments\t of  the Sessions Court and the High<br \/>\nCourt confirming the same.  We have also perused the of\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses,  to\tsatisfy ourselves that the assessment of the<br \/>\nevidence by the\t Courts\t below\tdoes  not  suffer  from\t any<br \/>\nserious infirmity.    As  noted\t earlier  the  circumstances<br \/>\nrelied upon by the prosecution have been established by\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  the  workers  in\tthe factory including Jaspal<br \/>\nPW-l, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3,  Daulat  Ram  PW-4,\t Ram<br \/>\nPrasad\tPW-6,  Gaya  Prasad  PW-18  and\t the  nephew  of the<br \/>\ndeceased vijay Ranjan PW-9.  On the facts and  circumstances<br \/>\nof  the case the presence of these witnesses at the place of<br \/>\noccurrence at the relevant time was natural.   They  had  no<br \/>\naxe to\tgrind against the appellant.  There is no reason why<br \/>\nthey should give false evidence against\t him.\t From  their<br \/>\nevidence  the  circumstances  pointing to the involvement of<br \/>\nthe appellant in the killing of the deceased have definitely<br \/>\nbeen established.  Further the appellant was  untraced\tfrom<br \/>\nthe day following the incident for about one and half years.<br \/>\nThe  circumstances  taken  cumulatively\t point,\t to the only<br \/>\nhypothesis of guilt of the appellant.  There is no  material<br \/>\non record   pointing   toward&#8217;s\t his  innocence.    On\tsuch<br \/>\nmaterials the Courts below rightly held that the prosecution<br \/>\nhad established\t the  case  against  the  appellant.\t The<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  Sessions  Judge  as confirmed by the High<br \/>\nCourt warrants no interference.\t Accordingly the  appeal  is<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 Author: Mohapatra. Bench: K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra. PETITIONER: ARVIND PAPPU Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/05\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA. JUDGMENT: MOHAPATRA. J. This appeal filed by the accused is directed against the judgment and order passed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-21T20:15:29+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T20:15:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1892,\"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\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\",\"name\":\"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T20:15:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-21T20:15:29+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T20:15:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999"},"wordCount":1892,"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\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999","name":"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T20:15:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-pappu-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-10-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arvind Pappu vs State (Delhi Administration) on 10 May, 1999"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/11339","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=11339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}