{"id":115148,"date":"2009-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-28T18:23:44","modified_gmt":"2018-10-28T12:53:44","slug":"dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n\n                                   AT JODHPUR\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n\n            Balbir                        Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n                        (1) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.713\/2006\n\n            Dilip Singh                  Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n                       (2) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.623\/2006\n\n            Hanuman                       Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n                        (3) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688\/2006\n\n            Prem Kumar & ors.         Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n                    (4) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.654\/2006\n\n            Jai Singh & ors.             Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n                       (5) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.700\/2006\n\n                            UNDER SECTION 374 OF\n                       THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.\n\n            Date of Judgment:                         18th May, 2009\n\n                                    P R E S E N T\n\n                        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n                     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI\n\n\n            Mr.M.D.Purohit,Sr.Adv.) for appellants in D.B.Criminal\n            Mr.Devendra Godara ) Appeals No.623\/2006,688\/2006\n            Mr.R.S.Gill,         ) 654\/2006 and 700\/2006.\n\n            Mr.Suresh Kumbhat       ) for appellant in D.B.Criminal\n            Mr.B.L.Dudi            ) Appeal No.713\/2006.\n            Mr.S.P.Joshi           )\n\n            Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor.\n\nREPORTABLE BY THE COURT : (PER THANVI J.)<\/pre>\n
            1.   These are the five appeals; one filed by Balbir
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
being D.B.Criminal Appeal No.713\/2006 arising out of<\/p>\n
the      judgment       dt.3.7.06          passed      by     the     learned<\/p>\n
Addl.Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Distt.Churu, in Sessions<\/p>\n
Case     No.29\/04       (41\/03),       whereby        accused       appellant<\/p>\n
Balbir    s\/o    Jagu     Das    was       convicted     of    the    offence<\/p>\n
u\/s.148     IPC    with    two   years’        R.I.   alongwith       fine    of<\/p>\n
Rs.1000\/- & in default, to further undergo two months’<\/p>\n
R.I.;    under     Sec.307\/149         IPC     with    five     years’       R.I.<\/p>\n
alongwith fine of Rs.2500\/- & in default, to further<\/p>\n
undergo     five    months’      R.I.      &   u\/s.302\/149           with    life<\/p>\n
imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000\/- & in default,<\/p>\n
to further undergo ten months’ R.I., all the substantive<\/p>\n
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However,<\/p>\n
Smt.Vedo,         Chandravali,         Bhateri        and     Vimla         were<\/p>\n
acquitted of the above charges. Accused Lichhman s\/o<\/p>\n
Jagu Das died during trial and accused Jai Singh is still<\/p>\n
absconding. This case was relating to FIR No.189\/03,<\/p>\n
Police    Station, Rajgarh. Remaining four appeals are<\/p>\n
relating to FIR No.190\/03 arising out of the judgment<\/p>\n
dt.3.7.06 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Rajgarh,        Distt.Churu,     in        Sessions     Case        No.40\/03<\/p>\n
(36\/03),    whereby        out   of    30,     accused        Surendra       s\/o<\/p>\n
Dharampal was acquitted of the charges levelled against<\/p>\n
and     Kashi     Ram     s\/o    Moka       Ram       died    on     22.3.06,
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore, proceedings against him were dropped. Rest<\/p>\n
of the accused appellants were convicted of the offence<\/p>\n
u\/s.148     IPC     with   two     years’          R.I.    alongwith        fine       of<\/p>\n
Rs.1000\/- & in default, to further undergo two months’<\/p>\n
R.I.; u\/s.302\/149 with life imprisonment alongwith fine<\/p>\n
of Rs.5000\/-each & in default, to further undergo ten<\/p>\n
months’     R.I.;    u\/s.323\/149             IPC     with    one     year’s        R.I.<\/p>\n
alongwith fine of Rs.500\/- each & in default, to further<\/p>\n
undergo one month’s R.I.; and u\/s.447 IPC with three<\/p>\n
months’     R.I.     alongwith      fine      of     Rs.250\/-        each         &    in<\/p>\n
default,    to     further    undergo          15     days’        R.I.,    all       the<\/p>\n
substantive          sentences           were             ordered          to         run<\/p>\n
concurrently.        Out     of    these       convicted           28      accused,<\/p>\n
accused      Dilip    Singh        has       filed        Appeal     No.623\/06;<\/p>\n
Hanuman      has filed        Appeal         No.688\/06;        Prem         Kumar,<\/p>\n
Kundan Ram, Surja Ram and Ajay Kumar have filed<\/p>\n
Appeal No.654\/06 and remaining 22 accused viz; (1) Jai<\/p>\n
Singh, (2) Lokram, (3) Dharam Singh, (4) Ramveer, (5)<\/p>\n
Ashok Kumar, (6) Subhash, (7) Om Prakash, (8) Rajesh<\/p>\n
Kumar,      (9)    Chanan         Ram,       (10)     Balveer,          (11)      Ram<\/p>\n
Narain,    (12)      Prabhu       Ram,       (13)     Dhanpat,          (14)      Jalle<\/p>\n
Singh,     (15)    Raghuveer,        (16)       Nopa        Ram,        (17)      Meer<\/p>\n
Singh, (18) Bajrang, (19) Shyam Sunder, (20) Ramphal,<\/p>\n
(21) Jai Prakash and              (22) Rambhakt have filed Appeal
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
No.700\/06.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    Since the incident of the case with regard to date,<\/p>\n
time and place is the same and the learned trial Judge<\/p>\n
has convicted all of them with the aid of Section 149<\/p>\n
IPC   by     holding   both   the   parties   as     aggressors,<\/p>\n
therefore, they are being disposed-of by this common<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    Both the parties filed their separate FIRs at Police<\/p>\n
Station, Rajgarh. The author of the FIR No.189\/03 is Jai<\/p>\n
Prakash in D.B.Cr.Appeal No.713\/06 filed by accused<\/p>\n
Balbir s\/o Jagu Das in which it is alleged that on 6.7.03<\/p>\n
at 11.15 AM, accused persons came at the deity land of<\/p>\n
village Rohi, which was earlier cultivated by Dharam<\/p>\n
Singh and his family and last year, it was cultivated by<\/p>\n
Mandir Vikas Samiti of the village. In the morning at<\/p>\n
7.30 AM, Dharam Singh, Bhailal, Dhanpat, Rambharat,<\/p>\n
Phul Singh, Balbeer s\/o Sher Singh, Subhash, Karan<\/p>\n
Singh etc. alongwith Jai Singh, Dhanpat, Meer Singh,<\/p>\n
Shyamlal, Balveer r\/o Mithi Redwal went for cultivating<\/p>\n
the   land   on   tractor.   When   they   started   cultivating,<\/p>\n
Dharam Singh s\/o Jagu Ram with rifle, Jai Singh s\/o<\/p>\n
Dharam Singh with rifle, Omprakash s\/o Dharam Singh,
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
Sahi Ram, Balveer & Kashi Ram, all sons of Jagu Das,<\/p>\n
Badama widow of Jagu Das and wives of Dharam Singh,<\/p>\n
Balveer and Kashi Ram r\/o Mithi Redwal came with<\/p>\n
`kulhari’, `pharsi’ and lathis etc. and attacked on them.<\/p>\n
Jai     Singh    fired   at    him,       which    hit    his     left    thigh.<\/p>\n
Thereafter,        Balveer     s\/o    Sher        Singh,     Subhash        s\/o<\/p>\n
Mahendra Singh and Karan Singh s\/o Hazarilal were also<\/p>\n
fired by Dharam Singh and Jai Singh, which hit Karan<\/p>\n
Singh, Balveer and Subhash with the result, the blood<\/p>\n
came out. Thereafter, they went to the hospital, where<\/p>\n
Karan Singh died. Dharam Singh etc. fired in order to<\/p>\n
kill them       and they were all injured. Upon this report,<\/p>\n
the police registered the case u\/ss.302, 307, 324, 323,<\/p>\n
147, 148 & 149 IPC and Sec.27 of the Arms Act vide<\/p>\n
FIR No.189\/03. The police arrested the accused and<\/p>\n
started       investigation.     After     investigation,         the     police<\/p>\n
filed    challan     against     seven      persons        viz;    Lichhman,<\/p>\n
Balbir s\/o Jagu Das, Vedo, Chandravali, Bhateri, Vimla<\/p>\n
and Jai Singh under ss.302, 307, 323, 147, 148 and<\/p>\n
149 and Sec.27 Arms Act. Lichhman died during trial<\/p>\n
and     Jai     Singh    was    absconding,         therefore,           challan<\/p>\n
u\/s.299       CrPC   was      filed   against      him.     Accused        were<\/p>\n
charged        u\/ss.148,      302\/149       and     307\/149        IPC.     The<\/p>\n
prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The statements of
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
the   accused     were     recorded         u\/s.313    CrPC.    They<\/p>\n
produced Girdharilal, DW 1                 in their defence. After<\/p>\n
hearing     the   arguments,         the     learned   trial    Judge<\/p>\n
acquitted lady accused viz; Vedo, Chandravali, Bhateri<\/p>\n
and Vimla but convicted the accused appellant Balbir<\/p>\n
s\/o Jagu Das as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    The author of the FIR No.190\/03 is Balveer s\/o<\/p>\n
Jagu Ram, who is the appellant in Appeal No.713\/06 in<\/p>\n
which it is allged that on 6.7.03, in the morning at 7.30<\/p>\n
AM, when he alongwith his family members went to<\/p>\n
their field for cultivation, then large number of persons<\/p>\n
came there from the side of the village in five tractors.<\/p>\n
He saw Jai Singh, Rambakht, Manphul, Bajrang, Phul<\/p>\n
Singh,    Meer    Singh,    Raghuveer,            Dhanpat,     Pawan,<\/p>\n
Jaiprakash, Kunan, Dalip, Ram Kumar, Dharam Singh,<\/p>\n
Surendra,     Balveer      s\/o       Sher     Singh,    Lok     Ram,<\/p>\n
Omprakash, Shyamlal, Karan Singh, Subhash, Charan<\/p>\n
Singh,    Surja   Ram,     Ramnarain,         Ashok,   Kashi    Ram,<\/p>\n
Dalveer, Rajpal, Chanan Singh, Rajesh, Surendra, Prem,<\/p>\n
Mahaveer,     Ramveer,     Prabhu          Ram,   Hanuman      Singh,<\/p>\n
Nopa Ram, Rajveer and other villagers of Mithi Redwal.<\/p>\n
The tractors were of Jai Singh, Meera Singh, Dhanpat,<\/p>\n
Jalle Singh and Bhailal and jeep was of Ashok Kumar.
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
They all exhorted uttering the words “Maro Maro”. First<\/p>\n
of all, Rambakht, Meera Singh, Jaiprakash and Dharam<\/p>\n
Singh gave lathi blows and rest of the accused inflicted<\/p>\n
blows with lathis and axe to his family members. He ran<\/p>\n
away from the spot. They all killed his brother Dharam<\/p>\n
Singh, Omprakash and Kashi Ram. On this report, the<\/p>\n
police registered a case u\/ss.302, 307, 323, 324, 147,<\/p>\n
148, 149 & 447 IPC vide FIR No.190\/03 and commenced<\/p>\n
investigation. After investigation, all the 30 accused<\/p>\n
were chargesheeted. After hearing the arguments on<\/p>\n
charge, the accused were charged u\/ss.148, 302\/149,<\/p>\n
307\/149, 323\/149 and 447 IPC to which they pleaded<\/p>\n
not guilty. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses. The<\/p>\n
statements of the accused were recorded u\/s.313 CrPC.<\/p>\n
They produced Pyarelal, DW 1 and Surendra Kumar, DW<\/p>\n
2 in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants as<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   We have heard the arguments of learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
6.   Learned     counsel   for       the   appellants   in    all   the<\/p>\n
appeals   have   not   questioned          the   conviction   of    the
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
accused appellants, as according to them, it was a case<\/p>\n
of free fight and the learned trial Court has held both<\/p>\n
the parties as aggressors but their contention is that<\/p>\n
both the cases are covered under Section 304 part II<\/p>\n
IPC instead of Section 302 IPC, therefore, they should<\/p>\n
be sentenced to the period already undergone because<\/p>\n
most     of   the   accused         have     undergone         sentence<\/p>\n
approximately for a period of about 6 years and if their<\/p>\n
remission period is counted, it will exceed seven years.<\/p>\n
Appellant     Balbir    s\/o        Jagu    Das     in    D.B.Cr.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.713\/06 is still in custody since 9.7.03 and Dharam<\/p>\n
Singh, Ramveer, Balveer s\/o Sher Singh, Prabhu Ram,<\/p>\n
Raghuveer and Jai Prakash in D.B.Cr.Appeal No.700\/06<\/p>\n
are also in custody and rest of the accused appellants<\/p>\n
have been enlarged on bail recently.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     Per    contra,     learned         Public    Prosecutor      has<\/p>\n
supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.<\/p>\n
8.     In view of the submissions, made at the bar, we<\/p>\n
are not going to disturb the finding of the learned trial<\/p>\n
Judge    with    regard       to    conviction      of   the   accused<\/p>\n
appellants u\/ss.148, 307\/149 and 447 IPC dealing with<\/p>\n
the common object because it is the settled law that if
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
free fight takes place and it is not established as to who<\/p>\n
is the aggressor, then the question of common object<\/p>\n
does    not   exist   because     it    de-links    the    concept    of<\/p>\n
constructive liability but when there is a free fight and<\/p>\n
both the parties are aggressors, then the concept of<\/p>\n
constructive criminal liability cannot be ignored and it is<\/p>\n
said to have been established in such a situation in both<\/p>\n
the cross cases. Now, we are confined as to whether it<\/p>\n
is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder<\/p>\n
punishable       u\/s.302    IPC   or     culpable     homicide       not<\/p>\n
amounting to murder punishable u\/s.304 part I or part<\/p>\n
II IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     It is contended by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that it is a case of offence u\/s.304 part II<\/p>\n
IPC but we are not prepared to accept this contention of<\/p>\n
the    learned    counsel   for   the    appellants       because    the<\/p>\n
offence u\/s.304 part II IPC is made out only if the<\/p>\n
death is caused with the knowledge, whereas u\/s.304<\/p>\n
part I IPC, the element of intention is existing. To<\/p>\n
distinguish culpable homicide not amounting to murder<\/p>\n
as defined u\/s.299 and culpable homicide amounting to<\/p>\n
murder as defined u\/s.300 IPC, it may be summarized<\/p>\n
by the following Chart:\n<\/p>\n
                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
             Section 299                            Section 300
\nA person commits culpable homicide Subject  to   certain  exceptions
\nif the act by which the death is culpable homicide is murder if the
\ncaused is done….                 act by which the death caused is
\n                                   done….\n<\/p>\n
                               INTENTION<\/p>\n
(a) with the intention of causing (1) with the intention of causing
\ndeath; or                         death; or\n<\/p>\n
(b) with the intention of causing such (2) with the intention of causing such
\nbodily injury as is likely to cause bodily injury as the offender knows
\ndeath; or                              to be likely to cause the death of the
\n                                       person to whom the harm is caused;\n<\/p>\n
                                       or
\n                                       (3) with the intention of causing
\n                                       bodily injury to any person and the
\n                                       bodily injury intended to be inflicted
\n                                       is sufficient in the ordinary course of
\n                                       nature to cause death; or<\/p>\n
                              KNOWLEDGE<\/p>\n
(c) with the knowledge that the act is (4) with the knowledge that the act is
\nlikely to cause death.                 so imminently dangerous that it must
\n                                       in all probability cause death or such
\n                                       bodily injury as is likely to cause
\n                                       death, and without any excuse for
\n                                       incurring the risk of causing death or
\n                                       such injury as is mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   In both the cases, the element of intention and<\/p>\n
knowledge is existing. An act is said to be intentional in<\/p>\n
so far as it exists in idea before it exists in effect,<\/p>\n
whereas knowledge is awareness of the consequence of<\/p>\n
the act. Culpable homicide is murder, if that knowledge
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
of the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in<\/p>\n
all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is<\/p>\n
likely    to    cause   death   and        without       any    excuse   for<\/p>\n
incurring the risk of causing death or such bodily injury<\/p>\n
as is mentioned above, whereas intention to make the<\/p>\n
act punishable u\/s.304 part I IPC should be either of<\/p>\n
causing death or of such bodily injury as is likely to<\/p>\n
cause death and for culpable homicide amounting to<\/p>\n
murder, that intention must be coupled with causing<\/p>\n
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to<\/p>\n
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is<\/p>\n
caused or that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course<\/p>\n
of nature to cause death. Though distinction is very thin<\/p>\n
but it depends upon the culpability of the act i.e. mens<\/p>\n
rea,     which   should   be    gathered          from    the    facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances of each case and the manner in which the<\/p>\n
offence has been committed. Apart from this, if the<\/p>\n
case falls under any of the Four Exceptions of Section<\/p>\n
300      IPC,    then   also,   it    is    not    culpable       homicide<\/p>\n
amounting to murder. The present case is not borne out<\/p>\n
under any of the Four Exceptions of Section 300 IPC but<\/p>\n
the facts as have emerged from the record are that it is<\/p>\n
a case, which is covered under Clause (b) of Section<\/p>\n
299 IPC which defines culpable homicide not amounting
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
to murder. This thin distinction as discussed above is<\/p>\n
with regard to likelihood of causing bodily injury in case<\/p>\n
of Section 299 IPC and likelihood                     of causing bodily<\/p>\n
injury to the person to whom harm is caused within the<\/p>\n
knowledge of the offender in a case of Section 300 IPC.<\/p>\n
Meaning        thereby     that      element         of     likelihood    of<\/p>\n
knowledge of causing bodily injury and the person to<\/p>\n
whom harm is caused, is existing in Section 300 IPC i.e.<\/p>\n
culpable       homicide      amounting          to   murder,      whereas<\/p>\n
simpliciter likelihood of causing bodily injury without<\/p>\n
knowing to whom the harm is caused, brings the case<\/p>\n
u\/s.299 IPC defining culpable homicide not amounting<\/p>\n
to     murder.    To   distinguish        Clause      (b)   of   both    the<\/p>\n
Sections, we may say that likelihood without qualifying<\/p>\n
intention is an act done under probability covered under<\/p>\n
Sec.299 IPC and if that likelihood is coupled with an<\/p>\n
idea of certainty, then it is a case which falls under<\/p>\n
Sec.300 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.     From     the   FIR     and        the    statements       of     the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses, it is abundantly clear from the<\/p>\n
site    plan     Ex.P.39   and    Ex.P.39A           of   Sessions      Case<\/p>\n
No.40\/03, which is Ex.P.37 in Sessions Case No.41\/03,<\/p>\n
where point-1 is the deity land in the shape of field.
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
The portion `A’ in the site plan is the one part of the<\/p>\n
field and portion `B’ is the another part of the field.<\/p>\n
From portion `E to F’, the field has been cultivated with<\/p>\n
the help of tractor. The point `X’ is the place where<\/p>\n
Karan Singh died and at point `X-1 to X-3′, the dead<\/p>\n
bodies of Kashi Ram, Omprakash and Dharam Singh<\/p>\n
were lying. In between these two places, the fight took<\/p>\n
place between both the sides with deadly weapons and<\/p>\n
firearms and both the parties came from the different<\/p>\n
directions. From the record, it is not established that as<\/p>\n
to which party was in possession over the land. Both<\/p>\n
parties claimed their cultivation on the land. When one<\/p>\n
party    started   cultivation,    other   party   also   went    to<\/p>\n
cultivate it. The learned trial Judge has also given the<\/p>\n
finding to this effect at page 16 of the judgment in<\/p>\n
Sessions Case No.41\/03 that from the documents, it is<\/p>\n
not established as to which party was in possession<\/p>\n
over the disputed land. This finding of the learned trial<\/p>\n
Judge coupled with the oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
goes to show that to ascertain their possession over the<\/p>\n
disputed land, they started fighting. Both the parties<\/p>\n
became aggressors and used deadly weapons including<\/p>\n
firearms resulting in death of Karan Singh from one side<\/p>\n
and     three   persons   viz;   Kashi   Ram,   Omprakash        and
\n                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
Dharam      Singh   from   the   other    side.     It    is   also    not<\/p>\n
established as to which of the accused inflicted injury to<\/p>\n
which deceased and the injured, in absence of which, it<\/p>\n
can be inferred that both the parties were aggressors<\/p>\n
and are guilty of the offence of rioting armed with<\/p>\n
deadly weapons punishable u\/s.148 and of constructive<\/p>\n
criminal liability u\/s.149 IPC. In such a situation, when<\/p>\n
it is not established as to which accused inflicted injury<\/p>\n
to which deceased in a free fight, then their conviction<\/p>\n
u\/s.304 part I IPC is more appropriate than u\/s.304<\/p>\n
part II IPC because the act is coupled with the intention<\/p>\n
of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death<\/p>\n
as defined u\/s.299 IPC. Had one party been aggressor<\/p>\n
or having knowledge that such bodily injury will cause<\/p>\n
death to whom it is pointed, then it would have been a<\/p>\n
case   of   culpable   homicide       amounting      to       murder    as<\/p>\n
defined u\/s.300 IPC. In view of the above, we are<\/p>\n
unable to agree with the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants that it is a case falling under<\/p>\n
Section 304 part II IPC. In our view, the site plan, oral<\/p>\n
and    documentary      evidence       leads   us        to    the    only<\/p>\n
conclusion that it is a case of culpable homicide not<\/p>\n
amounting to murder punishable u\/s.304 part I IPC<\/p>\n
alongwith other offences for which conviction has been
\n                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
recorded and has not been questioned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   So far as the sentence part is concerned, normally<\/p>\n
once a person is convicted u\/s.304 part I IPC, he should<\/p>\n
be sentenced to 7 years but in these appeals, accused<\/p>\n
Balbir s\/o Jagu Das in D.B.Cr.Appeal No.713\/2006 is<\/p>\n
still in custody and has already suffered a sentence for<\/p>\n
about 6 years. Likewise, six appellants viz; Dharam<\/p>\n
Singh, Ramveer,     Balveer s\/o Sher Singh, Prabhu Ram,<\/p>\n
Raghuveer     and   Jai    Prakash   in    cross    D.B.Cr.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.700\/06 have also suffered the sentence for about 6<\/p>\n
years and rest of the accused appellants, who have<\/p>\n
recently been bailed out, have undergone the sentence<\/p>\n
approximately for more than 5 years. If their remission<\/p>\n
period is counted, then it might exceed 7 years. In such<\/p>\n
a situation, the ends of justice will be met, if they are<\/p>\n
sentenced to the period already undergone.<\/p>\n
13.   Consequently, we allow these appeals in part and the<\/p>\n
accused appellants are convicted & sentenced as under:<\/p>\n
      (i)   Accused appellants (1) Jai Singh, (2) Lokram,<\/p>\n
(3) Dharam Singh, (4) Ramveer, (5) Ashok Kumar, (6)<\/p>\n
Subhash,    (7)   Om      Prakash,   (8)   Rajesh    Kumar,   (9)
\n                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
Chanan     Ram,    (10)        Balveer,    (11)    Ram     Narain,    (12)<\/p>\n
Prabhu     Ram,    (13)     Dhanpat,        (14)   Jalle    Singh,    (15)<\/p>\n
Raghuveer,       (16)    Nopa     Ram,      (17)   Meer     Singh,    (18)<\/p>\n
Bajrang, (19) Shyam Sunder, (20) Ramphal, (21) Jai<\/p>\n
Prakash     and         (22)      Rambhakt         in      D.B.Cr.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.700\/2006;        accused         appellant       Dilip     Singh      in<\/p>\n
D.B.Cr.Appeal      No.623\/2006;            accused      appellants      (1)<\/p>\n
Prem Kumar, (2) Kundan Ram, (3) Surja Ram and (4)<\/p>\n
Ajay Kumar in D.B.Cr.Appeal No.654\/2006; and accused<\/p>\n
appellant Hanuman in D.B.Cr.Appeal No.688\/2006, are<\/p>\n
convicted of the offence under Section 304 part I read<\/p>\n
with 149 IPC instead of Section 302\/149 IPC recorded<\/p>\n
by   the      learned          Addl.Sessions        Judge,      Rajgarh,<\/p>\n
Distt.Churu       vide     his     judgment        dt.3.7.2006          and<\/p>\n
sentenced to the period already undergone alongwith a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.5000\/-each and in default, to undergo ten<\/p>\n
months’    R.I.    Their       conviction    and    sentences        under<\/p>\n
Sec.148    IPC    with     two    years’    R.I. alongwith       fine    of<\/p>\n
Rs.1000\/-each & in default, to further undergo two<\/p>\n
months’ R.I.; under Sec.323\/149 IPC with one year’s<\/p>\n
R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.500\/- each & in default, to<\/p>\n
further undergo one month’s R.I.; and under Sec.447<\/p>\n
IPC with three months’ R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.250\/-<\/p>\n
each & in default, to further undergo 15 days’ R.I. are
\n                                     17<\/span><\/p>\n
maintained.      All   the   substantive     sentences      shall   run<\/p>\n
concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    Accused appellant Balbir s\/o Jagu Das in D.B.Cr.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.713\/2006 is convicted of the offence under Section 304 part I<\/p>\n
read with 149 IPC instead of Section 302\/149 IPC recorded by<\/p>\n
the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Distt.Churu vide his<\/p>\n
judgment dt.3.7.2006 and sentenced to the period already<\/p>\n
undergone alongwith a fine of Rs.5000\/- and in default, to<\/p>\n
undergo ten months’ R.I. His conviction and sentences under<\/p>\n
Sec.148 IPC with two years’ R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.1000\/- & in<\/p>\n
default,   to   further   undergo    two   months’   R.I.   and   under<\/p>\n
Sec.307\/149 IPC with five years’ R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.2500\/-<\/p>\n
& in default, to further undergo five months’ R.I. are maintained.<\/p>\n
All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.<\/p>\n
(iii)   Accused appellants Balbir s\/o Jagu Das in D.B.Cr.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.713\/06 and Dharam Singh, Ramveer,                 Balveer s\/o Sher<\/p>\n
Singh, Prabhu Ram, Raghuveer and Jai Prakash in D.B.Cr.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.700\/06 are in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not<\/p>\n
required in any other case, on depositing of fine awarded on<\/p>\n
different counts. Rest of the accused appellants are on bail &<\/p>\n
they are granted thirty days’ time from today to deposit the fine,<\/p>\n
awarded on different counts, else they will undergo the sentence
\n                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
awarded in default of payment of fine by issuing warrant of<\/p>\n
arrest against the defaulting accused by the learned trial Court.<\/p>\n
(DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J.                     (A.M.KAPADIA), J.<\/p>\n
RANKAWAT JK, PS\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Balbir Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.713\/2006 Dilip Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2) D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.623\/2006 Hanuman Vs. State of […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nDilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 - 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\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-28T12:53:44+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T12:53:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3345,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T12:53:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 - 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\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-28T12:53:44+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T12:53:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009"},"wordCount":3345,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009","name":"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T12:53:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-singh-vs-state-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilip Singh vs State on 18 May, 2009"}]},{"@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\/115148","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=115148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}