{"id":114625,"date":"2011-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011"},"modified":"2019-02-23T12:59:34","modified_gmt":"2019-02-23T07:29:34","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . B Chauhan<\/div>\n
Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar<\/div>\n
                                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 937 of 2005\n\n\n\n\nState of Rajasthan                                                         ...Appellant\n\n\n                                       Versus\n\n\nTalevar & Anr.                                                              ...Respondents\n\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against <\/p>\n
the judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the High Court of <\/p>\n
Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1579 <\/p>\n
of 2002 acquitting the respondents, setting aside their conviction and <\/p>\n
the sentence passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast <\/p>\n
Track), Laxmangarh, Alwar, dated 2.11.2002 in Sessions Case No. 4 <\/p>\n
of   2002   (14\/2000)   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   395, <\/p>\n
396   and   397   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (hereinafter   called   the <\/p>\n
IPC).\n<\/p>\n
2.      The   facts   and   circumstances   giving   rise   to   this   case   are   as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
A.     Santosh   Jagwayan   (PW.13)   lodged   an   FIR   on   17.12.1996   at <\/p>\n
8.30   A.M.,   that   in   the   intervening   night   between   16th  and   17th <\/p>\n
December,  1996 on hearing the noise, he sent his Chowkidar Gopal <\/p>\n
Nepali   (deceased)   to   the   roof   of   his   house.     Gopal   Nepali   went <\/p>\n
upstairs and opened the gate of the roof and found that 8 to 10 accused <\/p>\n
persons were trying to enter into the house by breaking upon the door <\/p>\n
of the roof.   They immediately fired shot at Gopal Nepali (deceased) <\/p>\n
and entered into the house.  The accused persons locked Shashi Devi <\/p>\n
(PW.12) wife of complainant, Preeti (PW.14) and Sandhya (PW.15), <\/p>\n
his   daughters,   in   the   bathroom   and   started   looting   the   moveable <\/p>\n
properties.  In the meanwhile, his neighbours raised their voice.  Thus, <\/p>\n
the accused immediately fired a shot at Mrs. Anita Yadav, as a result <\/p>\n
of which, she died on the spot.  Kripa Dayal Yadav (PW.2), husband <\/p>\n
of Anita Yadav (deceased) caught   hold of one of the accused but he <\/p>\n
was beaten with the butt of the gun by the other accused persons and <\/p>\n
they   got   the   accused   released   from   his   clutches.   The   accused <\/p>\n
decamped with cash, jewellery and silver wares etc.  <\/p>\n
B.     On   the   basis   of   the   said   complaint,   an   FIR   No.   240   of   1996 <\/p>\n
(Ex.P-30) was registered under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 398 IPC <\/p>\n
and investigation ensued.  The dead bodies of Gopal Nepali and Anita <\/p>\n
                                                                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Yadav were recovered and sent for post-mortem examination.  Kuniya <\/p>\n
–   accused\/respondent   was   arrested   on   24.12.1996.   He   made   a <\/p>\n
disclosure statement (Ex.P-76) on 29.12.1996 on the basis of which a <\/p>\n
silver   glass   and   one   thousand   rupees   were   recovered   vide   recovery <\/p>\n
memo   (Ex.P-53).   Further,   on   his   disclosure   statement,     a   scooter <\/p>\n
bearing   No.   RJ-05-0678   was   recovered   vide   recovery   memo   (Ex.P-\n<\/p>\n
52) on 2.1.1997.\n<\/p>\n
C.     Another   accused   Talevar   –   respondent,   was   arrested   on <\/p>\n
19.1.1997   and   on   his   disclosure   statement   made   on   26.1.1997,   two <\/p>\n
thousand rupees, a silver key ring and a key of Ambassador car was <\/p>\n
recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P-45).\n<\/p>\n
D.     Some   more   recoveries   were   made   from   the   other   accused <\/p>\n
persons.   After   completing   the   investigation   chargesheet   was   filed <\/p>\n
against   9   accused   persons   including   the   two   respondents.   As   all   of <\/p>\n
them   pleaded   not   guilty,   they   were   put   to   trial   for   the   offences <\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 395, 396 and 398 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
E.         In   the   Sessions   trial   prosecution   examined   34   witnesses   in <\/p>\n
support of its case. The ornaments and stolen articles were identified <\/p>\n
by   Shashi  Devi  (PW.12)   and  Santosh  Jagwayan  (PW.13).    The  trial <\/p>\n
                                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
court  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  2.11.2002  convicted  8 accused <\/p>\n
including   the   two   respondents.   One   accused   named   Ram   Krishan, <\/p>\n
died during the trial.  All of them stood convicted under the provisions <\/p>\n
of   Sections   395,   396   and   397   IPC.     All   the   accused   were   awarded <\/p>\n
punishment to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000\/- and <\/p>\n
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous <\/p>\n
imprisonment under Section 396 IPC. All of them were convicted for <\/p>\n
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   397   IPC   and   a   sentence   to <\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.500\/-\n<\/p>\n
and   in   default   of   payment   of   fine,   to   further   undergo   three   months <\/p>\n
rigorous   imprisonment.     They   were   further   convicted   under   Section <\/p>\n
395   IPC,   awarded   life   imprisonment   and   fine   of   Rs.   1,000\/-   and   in <\/p>\n
default   of   payment   of   fine,   to   further   undergo   six   months   rigorous <\/p>\n
imprisonment.     Accused   namely,   Ghurelal,   Chunchu   @   Bhagwan <\/p>\n
Singh, Kallu, Rajpal and Samay Singh were further convicted under <\/p>\n
Sections 3\/25 and 3\/27 of the Arms Act and sentence was awarded to <\/p>\n
undergo   three   years   rigorous   imprisonment   and   a   fine   of   Rs.   500\/-\n<\/p>\n
each of them, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three <\/p>\n
months rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
F.      Being aggrieved by the said decision, all the accused including <\/p>\n
the   two   respondents   preferred   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1579   of   2002, <\/p>\n
which has been decided by the High Court vide judgment and order <\/p>\n
dated   27.10.2004   acquitting   the   two   respondents\/accused   though <\/p>\n
maintaining the conviction and sentence in respect of other accused.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, this appeal by the State against their acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Dr. Manish  Singhvi, learned  Additional  Advocate  General  for <\/p>\n
the   State   of   Rajasthan,   has   submitted   that   recovery   of   some   of   the <\/p>\n
looted   property   had   been   made   on   the   basis   of   the   disclosure <\/p>\n
statements   made   by   the   said   respondents.   The   law   provides   for   a <\/p>\n
presumption that they had participated in the crime and, therefore, the <\/p>\n
High   Court   has   wrongly   acquitted   the   said   accused   and   thus,   the <\/p>\n
appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
4.      On the contrary, Shri Altaf Hussain, learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
for   the   said   two   accused,   has   vehemently   opposed   the   appeal <\/p>\n
contending   that   mere   recovery   of   looted   property   on   the   disclosure <\/p>\n
statement of the accused, is not enough to bring home the charges of <\/p>\n
offence of loot or dacoity,  when the recovery is made after expiry of <\/p>\n
a considerable period from the date of incident and particularly when <\/p>\n
the   nature   of   the   looted   property   is   such   which   can   change   hands <\/p>\n
                                                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
easily.  Thus, no inference can be drawn against the respondents. The <\/p>\n
order of acquittal made by the High Court has been passed on proper <\/p>\n
appreciation   of facts   and  application  of  law.  The  appeal   lacks   merit <\/p>\n
and is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
5.        We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned <\/p>\n
counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
6.      Admitted facts remained so far as the two respondents\/accused <\/p>\n
are   concerned,   that   no   test   identification   parade   was   held   at   all.\n<\/p>\n
Further none of the eye witnesses, particularly, Shashi Devi (PW.12), <\/p>\n
Santosh   Jagwayan   (PW.13),   Kripa   Dayal   Yadav   (PW.2),   Preeti <\/p>\n
(PW.14)   and   Sandhya   (PW.15),   identified   either   of   the   said <\/p>\n
respondents   in   the   court.     Therefore,   there   is   no   evidence   so   far   as <\/p>\n
their identification is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Thus, the sole question remains to be decided whether adverse <\/p>\n
inference could be drawn against the accused merely on the basis of <\/p>\n
recoveries made on their disclosure statements.\n<\/p>\n
7.1.       In  Gulab   Chand   v.   State   of   M.P.,   AIR   1995   SC   1598,   this <\/p>\n
Court   upheld   the   conviction   for   committing   dacoity   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
recovery   of   ornaments   of   the   deceased   from   the   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
person   accused   of   robbery   and   murder  immediately  after   the <\/p>\n
occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
7.2.         In  Geejaganda Somaiah  v. State of Karnataka, AIR<\/a> 2007 <\/p>\n
SC 1355,  this Court relied on the judgment in Gulab Chand (supra) <\/p>\n
and   observed   that     simply   on   the   recovery   of   stolen   articles,   no <\/p>\n
inference   can   be   drawn   that   a   person   in   possession   of   the   stolen <\/p>\n
articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability <\/p>\n
for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
of the case and the nature of evidence adduced.\n<\/p>\n
        It has been indicated by this Court in Sanwat Khan v. State of <\/p>\n
Rajasthan, AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 54,  that no hard and fast rule can be laid <\/p>\n
down   as   to   what   inference   should   be   drawn   from   certain <\/p>\n
circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
7.3.    In  Tulsiram   Kanu   v.   State,   AIR   1954   SC   1,  this   Court   has <\/p>\n
indicated   that   the   presumption   permitted   to   be   drawn   under   Section <\/p>\n
114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act 1872  has to be drawn under <\/p>\n
the  ‘important   time   factor’.  If   the   ornaments   in   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, <\/p>\n
a   presumption   of   guilt   may   be   permitted.   But   if   a   long   period   has <\/p>\n
                                                                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
expired   in   the   interval,   the   presumption   cannot   be   drawn   having <\/p>\n
regard to the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
7.4.     In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446, <\/p>\n
this Court held that the nature of the presumption under Illustration (a) <\/p>\n
of Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of <\/p>\n
evidence adduced. No fixed time-limit can be laid down to determine <\/p>\n
whether possession is recent or otherwise. Each case must be judged <\/p>\n
on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession <\/p>\n
sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according “as the <\/p>\n
stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand”.\n<\/p>\n
If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from <\/p>\n
hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed could not be said to <\/p>\n
be   too   long   particularly   when   the   appellant   had   been   absconding <\/p>\n
during that period.\n<\/p>\n
7.5.   Following such a reasoning, in Sanjay @ Kaka etc. etc. v. The <\/p>\n
State   (NCT   of   Delhi),  AIR   2001   SC   979,  this   Court   upheld   the <\/p>\n
conviction by the trial court since disclosure statements were made by <\/p>\n
the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence <\/p>\n
and the property of the deceased was recovered at their instance from <\/p>\n
the places where they had kept such properties, on the same day. The <\/p>\n
                                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
Court   found   that  the   trial   Court   was   justified   in   holding   that   the <\/p>\n
disclosure statements of the accused persons and huge recoveries from <\/p>\n
them at their instance by itself was   a sufficient circumstance on the <\/p>\n
very   next   day   of   the   incident   which   clearly   went   to   show   that   the <\/p>\n
accused persons had joined hands to commit the offence of robbery.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, recent and unexplained possession of stolen properties will <\/p>\n
be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well.\n<\/p>\n
7.6.        In  Ronny  Alias   Ronald   James   Alwaris  &   Ors.   v.   State   of <\/p>\n
Maharashtra, AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 1251,  this Court held that apropos the <\/p>\n
recovery of articles belonging to the family of the deceased from the <\/p>\n
possession of the appellants soon after the robbery and the murder of <\/p>\n
the   deceased   remained   unexplained   by   the   accused,   and   so   the <\/p>\n
presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act <\/p>\n
would be attracted :\n<\/p>\n
     “It needs no discussion to conclude that the murder and the <\/p>\n
     robbery   of   the   articles   were   found   to   be   part   of   the   same <\/p>\n
     transaction.   The   irresistible   conclusion   would   therefore,   be <\/p>\n
     that the appellants and no one else had committed the three <\/p>\n
     murders and the robbery.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
(See also:  Baijur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 522;\n<\/p>\n
and   Mukund  alias   Kundu   Mishra  &   Anr.   v.   State   of   Madhya <\/p>\n
Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 2622).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
7.7.     Thus, the law on this issue can be summarized to the effect that <\/p>\n
where   only   evidence   against   the   accused   is   recovery   of   stolen <\/p>\n
properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft <\/p>\n
and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe <\/p>\n
to   draw   an   inference   that   the   person   in   possession   of   the   stolen <\/p>\n
property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of <\/p>\n
the property so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from <\/p>\n
hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof.\n<\/p>\n
8.     In the instant case, accused Kuniya was arrested on 24.12.1996 <\/p>\n
and a silver glass and one thousand rupees were alleged to have been <\/p>\n
recovered   on   his   disclosure   statement   on   29.12.1996.   Again   on <\/p>\n
disclosure   statement   dated   2.1.1997,   a   scooter   alleged   to   have   been <\/p>\n
used   in   the   dacoity,   was   recovered.     Similarly,   another   accused <\/p>\n
Talevar was arrested on 19.1.1997 and on his disclosure statement on <\/p>\n
26.1.1997,   two   thousand   rupees,   a   silver   key   ring   and   a   key   of <\/p>\n
Ambassador   car   alleged   to   have   been   used   in   the   crime   were <\/p>\n
recovered.   Thus,   it   is   evident   that   recovery   on   the   disclosure <\/p>\n
statements   of   either   of   the   respondents\/accused   persons   was   not   in <\/p>\n
close proximity of time from the date of incident.  More so, recovery <\/p>\n
is either of cash, small things or vehicles which can be passed from <\/p>\n
                                                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
one person to another without any difficulty.  In such a fact situation, <\/p>\n
we   reach   the   inescapable   conclusion   that   no   presumption   can   be <\/p>\n
drawn   against   the   said   two   respondents\/accused   under   Section   114 <\/p>\n
Illustration   (a)   of   the   Evidence   Act.   No   adverse   inference   can   be <\/p>\n
drawn on the basis of recoveries made on their disclosure statements <\/p>\n
to connect them with the commission of the crime.\n<\/p>\n
9.     The  instant   appeal  has   been  prepared   by   the  State  against   the <\/p>\n
judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The law on the issue is settled to the effect that only in exceptional <\/p>\n
cases   where   there   are   compelling   circumstances   and   the   judgment <\/p>\n
under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere <\/p>\n
with the  order   of  acquittal.  The   appellate  court   should  bear  in mind <\/p>\n
the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial <\/p>\n
Court’s   acquittal   bolsters   the   presumption   of   his   innocence.\n<\/p>\n
Interference   in   a   routine   manner   where   the   other   view   is   possible <\/p>\n
should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.\n<\/p>\n
(See : Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of  U.P., AIR<\/a> 2011 SC 280;\n<\/p>\n
V.S.   Achuthanandan   v.   R.   Balakrishna   Pillai   &   Ors.,<\/a>   (2011)   3 <\/p>\n
SCC 317; and Rukia Begum & Ors. v. State of Karnataka,<\/a> (2011) <\/p>\n
4 SCC 779).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
      10.       In   view   of   the   above,   we   do   not   find   any   reason   to   interfere <\/p>\n
      with   the   well   reasoned   judgment   and   order   of   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
      acquitting   the   said   respondents.     The   appeal   lacks   merit   and   is <\/p>\n
      accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ………………………………\n<\/p>\n
      J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                      ……………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (SWATANTER KUMAR) <\/p>\n
      New Delhi,              <\/p>\n
      June 17, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 937 of 2005 State of Rajasthan …Appellant Versus Talevar & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E […]<\/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-114625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 - 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-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-23T07:29:34+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=\"11 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-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-23T07:29:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2189,\"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-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-23T07:29:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@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 Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 - 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-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-23T07:29:34+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-23T07:29:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011"},"wordCount":2189,"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-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-23T07:29:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-talevar-and-anr-on-17-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011"}]},{"@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\/114625","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=114625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}