{"id":117567,"date":"2008-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-17T15:03:56","modified_gmt":"2016-10-17T09:33:56","slug":"0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra<\/div>\n
                  DEATH REFERANC No.16 OF 2007\n                           ---\n<\/pre>\n
      Against the judgment and order dated 5.12.2007 and 6.12.2007
\n      passed in Sessions Trial No9.593 of 2006\/ Trial No.238
\n      of 2007 by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V), Banka.<\/p>\n
         State of Bihar ——————(Appellant)
\n                                         Versus\n<\/p>\n
       1. Dhaneshwar Yadav\n<\/p>\n
       2. Naresh Yadav\n<\/p>\n
       3. Suresh Yadav all sons of Moti Yadav, resident of Village Goura
\n       P.S.Chandan (Anandpur) District Banka ————–(Respondents)<\/p>\n
            CR. APP (DB) No.1502 oF 2007<\/p>\n
       UMESH YADAV @ UMESH RAI son of Late Garvu Yadav, resident
\n       of Village Goura Maghidih P.S.Anandpur (Chandan) District Banka-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                (Appellant)
\n                                   Versus
\n       THE STATE OF BIHAR———————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                                            (Respondents)<\/p>\n
              CR. APP (DB) No.7 oF 2008<\/p>\n
       ASHOK YADAV son of Dipan Yadav,resident of illage Sahiya, P.S.
\n       Jhajha, District Jamui——————————————-(Appellant)<\/p>\n
                               Versus
\n       THE STATE OF BIHAR—————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    (Respondents)<\/p>\n
                        CR. APP (DB) No.10 oF 2008<\/p>\n
       DHANESHWAR YADAV & ORS——————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                                              (Appellant)
\n                                 Versus
\n       STATE OF BIHAR———————————    -(Respondents)\n<\/p>\n
                        ————-\n<\/p>\n
       For the Appellants:- Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr.Advocate
\n                             Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha,Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
                             Mr. Satyaveer,Advocate
\n                            Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate
\n                            Mr. Anil Kumar No.VI,Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
       For the State:- Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad,Sr.Advocate<\/p>\n
                                  PRESENT<\/p>\n
        THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA<\/p>\n
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SYED MOHAMMAD MAHFOOZ ALAM
\n                                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Mridula Mishra,J             The Death Reference Case no.16 of 2007 has been referred for<\/p>\n
                   confirmation of death sentence imposed by the trial court in S.T.No.593 of<\/p>\n
                   2006\/ T.R.No.238 of 2007. Cr.Appeal No.1502 of 2007, Cr.Appeal No.7 of<\/p>\n
                   2008 and Cr.Appeal No.10 of 2008 have been filed against the judgment and<\/p>\n
                   order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Banka in<\/p>\n
                   Sessions Trial No. 593 of 2006\/ Trial No.238 of 2007. By the judgment and<\/p>\n
                   order dated 5.12.2007 and 6.12.2007 the appellants      Dhaneshwar Yadav,<\/p>\n
                   Naresh Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Umesh Yadav alias Umesh Rai and Ashok<\/p>\n
                   Yadav have been convicted under Sections 302\/149, 353 and 120B of the<\/p>\n
                   Indian Penal Code. They all have been awarded death sentence, for their<\/p>\n
                   conviction under Section 302\/149 of the Indian Penale, for conviction under<\/p>\n
                   Section 353 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code no separate sentence have<\/p>\n
                   been awarded.\n<\/p>\n
                            2.The prosecution case as disclosed from the fard beyan of<\/p>\n
                   Homeguard No.10707 Uday Kant Jha, driver of police jeep No. BR 10A-<\/p>\n
                   9453 of Anandpur Police station, and informant of Chandan (Anandpur)<\/p>\n
                   P.S.Case no.82 of 2005 is that he along with Bhagwan Singh, the Officer-in-<\/p>\n
                   charge of Anandpur O.P., constable Braj Bhushan Prasad, constable<\/p>\n
                   Nityanand Kumar and other police constables and Chaukidar had gone to the<\/p>\n
                   place of occurrence in Village Gaura where a fair was held on the occasion of<\/p>\n
                   Kali Puza. The Officer-incharge of Anandpur O.P. had received information<\/p>\n
                   that 2-4 days earlier an incident had taken place in between Umesh Rai and<\/p>\n
                   his rival at village Gaura in which a bomb was exploded. At about 3 P.M.<\/p>\n
                   the informant and other persons came at Village Gaura,         took tea and
\n                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
refreshment in the Mill of Umesh Rai. On account of Mela there was huge<\/p>\n
crowd. During patrolling in Mela on 3.11.2005 at about 5 P.M. a group of 30-<\/p>\n
40 terrorist started making scuffle with the constables and also opened fire<\/p>\n
from their rifles. The Officer-in-charge also opened fire but prior to that one<\/p>\n
of the terrorist fired upon the Officer-incharge and receiving injury he fell<\/p>\n
down. Thereafter continuous firing was made from the terrorist side. The<\/p>\n
informant and Chaukidars who were unarmed started fleeing away from the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence. Terrorists took away the rifle and pistol of Officer-in-<\/p>\n
charge. During firing constable Braj Bhushan Prasad and constable Nityanand<\/p>\n
Kumar also received injury. The Officer-in-charge as well as the constable<\/p>\n
succumb to their injuries. The informant came at Chandan Anandpur O.P. and<\/p>\n
there his fard beyan was recorded under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307,<\/p>\n
379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section \u00be             of Explosive<\/p>\n
Substance Act and 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
to as the C.L.A. Act) against unknown.\n<\/p>\n
               3. Name of appellants were impleaded as accused on suspicion<\/p>\n
and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against them. They were<\/p>\n
put on trial, charges were framed against them under Sections 302 \/149.<\/p>\n
307\/149, 147, 148, 323, 120B, 353\/149, 379\/149 of the Indian Penal Code as<\/p>\n
well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and 17 of C.L.A.Act.<\/p>\n
               4. The defence of the accused persons was of innocence and false<\/p>\n
implication.\n<\/p>\n
               5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges examined<\/p>\n
altogether 17 witnesses. P.W.1 Kamdeo Das was examined as seizure list<\/p>\n
witness and declared hostile as he did not admit that seizure was made in his
\n                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
presence and he put his signature on that.. P.W.2 Khublal Thakur is the<\/p>\n
owner of betal shop who used to run a betal shop in the Mela. His statement<\/p>\n
was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but in court he did not support<\/p>\n
the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The deposition of P.W.2 is that<\/p>\n
at the time of occurrence the appellant Umesh Yadav was sitting at his betal<\/p>\n
shop. So far Dhanesh yadav and Ashok Yadav are concerned their names<\/p>\n
have not been disclosed by this witness in his deposition. P.W.2 has not<\/p>\n
stated anything beyond presence of the appellant Umesh at his betal shop<\/p>\n
prior to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 is that he had not seen who<\/p>\n
fired. P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar has been declared hostile as he has not supported<\/p>\n
the case of prosecution. In his deposition he has stated that his statement was<\/p>\n
not recorded by the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 Madan Gopal Singh has<\/p>\n
proved his signature on the inquest report of two deceased persons marked as<\/p>\n
Ext.2\/A and 2\/B. He is a formal witness. P.W.5 Birendra Kumar is A.S.I. of<\/p>\n
police. He prepared the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.3 and 6. He<\/p>\n
seized blood stained trouser of appellant Dhaneshwar Rai and Braj Bhushan<\/p>\n
which has been marked as Exdt.3 and 6. He is also a inquest report witness.<\/p>\n
P.W.6 Surendra Yadav       is Chaukidar.His statement was recorded under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.P.C. but in court he has supported only one part of his<\/p>\n
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has         not supported the case of<\/p>\n
prosecution as such partly he has been declared hostile. P.W.7 Janki Yadav is<\/p>\n
also a Chaukidar. He has been named as eye witness in the F.I.R.           His<\/p>\n
statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but he did not support<\/p>\n
the case of prosecution as such he was        declared hostile. P.W.8 Suresh<\/p>\n
Paswan is another Chaukidar. He is a seizure list witness but he has not
\n                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
proved his signature on the seizure list Ext.7 and 8 as such declared hostile.<\/p>\n
P.W.9 Upendra Singh is the inquest report witness and has proved the inquest<\/p>\n
report of all three deceased. P.W.10 Uday Kant Jha is the informant who is<\/p>\n
driver of Commander Jeep no.B20Am9453. P.W.10 in his evidence he has<\/p>\n
not claimed to have identified any of the accused. His evidence is that when<\/p>\n
he saw that the Officer-in-charge has received fire arm injury and fell down<\/p>\n
on the ground. P.W.6 Surendra Yadav asked him to flee away from the place<\/p>\n
of occurrence as such he left the place of occurrence and came at O.P. and<\/p>\n
thereafter remained there. In paragraph 7 of his statement he has stated that he<\/p>\n
did not identify any of the accused. In court this P.W.10 did not identify the<\/p>\n
accused persons in dock. He said that non of them are assailant, rather they<\/p>\n
are villagers. P.W.10 has also stated that no T.I.Parade was held though the<\/p>\n
F.I.R. was against unknown. In sum and substance evidence of p.W.10 is that<\/p>\n
he did not identify any of the accused at the time of occurrence as well as in<\/p>\n
the dock. P.W.11 Shiv Narayan Paswan is the villager who was also present<\/p>\n
in the Mela at the time of occurrence. Since he did not support the case of<\/p>\n
prosecution he was declared hostile. P.W.12 Sharda Nand Suman is the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer who had recorded the fard beyan of P.W.10. He after<\/p>\n
recording the fard beyan of the informant made some seizure and prepared<\/p>\n
seizure list on the next day. He came at the place of occurrence after receiving<\/p>\n
wireless message     that three police personnels have been killed when he<\/p>\n
reached village Gaura, i.e. place of occurrence, he did not find any injured or<\/p>\n
deceased at Place of occurrence. From the evidence of this witness P.W.12 it<\/p>\n
transpires that the investigation of the case was done in a most casual and<\/p>\n
half hearted manner. P.W.13 Dr. Binay Kumar was posted as Medical Officer
\n                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
in Sadar Hospital, Godda at the time of occurrence. He conducted post-<\/p>\n
mortem on the dead body of all three deceased persons and submitted post-<\/p>\n
mortem report. P.W.14 Bipin Bihari Rai is the second Investigating Officer of<\/p>\n
the case. He had seized blood stained trouser of Dharmesh Rai and prepared<\/p>\n
seizure list. Evidence of P.W.14 is that the persons who were apprehended<\/p>\n
they have accepted that at the time of occurrence they had gone to see the<\/p>\n
Mela. Regarding blood staines found on the trouser explanation of Dhanesh<\/p>\n
Rai was that when police personnels received injury he was present and it<\/p>\n
stuck on the trouser. This witness who is second I.O. has not deposed that<\/p>\n
any one during investigation disclosed before him name of persons       who<\/p>\n
fired on the deceased. In paragraph 23 of his evidence he has specifically<\/p>\n
stated that no one disclosed the name of appellants as assailants. Against<\/p>\n
appellant Umesh Yadav no direct evidence was to connect him as assailant.<\/p>\n
P.W.15 Brajesh Narain Mishra is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded<\/p>\n
statement of Khublal Thakur P.W.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.21. This<\/p>\n
witness was not asked by the prosecutor regarding the statement made by<\/p>\n
P.W.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Simply he was asked whether the statement<\/p>\n
of P.W.2 was voluntary or involuntary. P.W.16 Kanchan Sharma is an<\/p>\n
advocate clerk who had proved the statement of P.W.6 and 7 recorded under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.,P.C. (Ext.22 and 23). He has admitted that he has no personal<\/p>\n
knowledge regarding the statement of P.W.5 and 7 recorded under Section<\/p>\n
164 Cr.P.C. P.W.17 Gopal Pandit is the constable who also had received<\/p>\n
injury on the date of occurrence. Even this injured witness, who is a police<\/p>\n
personnel did   not support the case of the prosecution and was declared<\/p>\n
hostile. One defence witness was also examined as D.W.1 namely Shiv
\n                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Narayan Yadav who proved the F.I.R. of Chandan P.S.Case no.37 of 1999.<\/p>\n
            6. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that this is a<\/p>\n
strange case in which three police personnel were killed and most of the<\/p>\n
witnesses are police personnel. They are named as eye witness in the F.I.R.<\/p>\n
itself but non of them have supported the case of prosecution. So far the<\/p>\n
appellants are concerned, they are not named in the F.I.R. as accused. On<\/p>\n
suspicion they were arrested during investigation but were not put on T.I.P..<\/p>\n
For the first time in the court they were produced before the witnesses, but<\/p>\n
the prosecution witnesses did not identify them as assailant. Prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses have identified them as villagers who were present in the Mela on<\/p>\n
the date of occurrence. There is nothing in their          evidence    to prove<\/p>\n
participation of these appellants in the occurrence. There is nothing to show<\/p>\n
that they were present in the Mela on the date of occurrence with an intention<\/p>\n
to commit the offence. No evidence has been brought by the prosecution in<\/p>\n
support of this fact that the appellants who were present at the betal shop or in<\/p>\n
the Mela had any knowledge that any such occurrence is going to take place<\/p>\n
on that date. Submission of the appellants’ counsel is that this is a case of no<\/p>\n
evidence but strangely the judge of the trial court has convicted the appellants<\/p>\n
under Sections 302\/149, 353 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and awarded<\/p>\n
severest punishment of death.\n<\/p>\n
            7. Mrs. Anjana Prakas counsel for the appellants has drawn my<\/p>\n
attention towards the reason assigned by the Judge of the trial court for<\/p>\n
awarding severest punishment to the appellants. In paragraph 19 of the<\/p>\n
judgment the finding which has been recorded by the Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge (Fast Track Court No.V) Banka are as follows:-
\n                              -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
             ” For a moment time was stopped and breathing of people was<\/p>\n
also stopped for a few minutes after hearing the news regarding        death of<\/p>\n
police personnel who were on duty for maintaining law and order to that<\/p>\n
Mela. In any attack of Naxal, there was chilling familiarity in the modus<\/p>\n
operandi of the operation. It is clear from perusal of case record that there is<\/p>\n
no direct evidence against accused persons but the prosecution case speak<\/p>\n
everything through the circumstances. Life of anyone is not safe now-a days<\/p>\n
by criminals, extremists, terrorists, religious places. Indian Parliament and<\/p>\n
court premises are also on their aim, the recent serial blast in Varanasi,<\/p>\n
Lucknow and Faizabad indicate that that court and officers who are working<\/p>\n
in court are not safe. Train serial blast is still in memory in which so many<\/p>\n
people lost their life and the impact of explosion in Varanasi and Faizabad<\/p>\n
that in roofs and asbestos sheets of the six lawyers make shift chambers were<\/p>\n
blown off. Window panes of the court building were shattered. Chaos and<\/p>\n
confusion prevailed as litigants and lawyers run helter skelter seeking cover.<\/p>\n
Seven Motorcycle park round the blast side in Varanasi were also destroyed.<\/p>\n
Meaning thereby in such a situation where Sub-inspector and his arms<\/p>\n
constable were killed by terrorists then the common people cannot dare to<\/p>\n
speak anything against terrorist and this is the reason behind any cr9minal<\/p>\n
case in which witnesses turn into hostile and accused persons acquitted in the<\/p>\n
absence of evidence. Terrorist action has created a panic in the society, in the<\/p>\n
present decade and it has not only disturbed the public peace and tranquility<\/p>\n
but also normal avocation of life. Though winds of compassion for the<\/p>\n
criminal blowing the world-over, are affecting the law, logc, the court and the<\/p>\n
legislature alike. Having regard to the circumstances of the case nature of
\n                               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
offence and potential danger for the activities of the terrorist, in this nefarious<\/p>\n
trade affecting the moral of society. For terrorist act punishment has to be<\/p>\n
deterrent, so that similar minded may warn themselves of the hazard of<\/p>\n
journey on this path.”\n<\/p>\n
             8. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction of<\/p>\n
any accused can be on consideration of legal evidence on record as provided<\/p>\n
under Section 3 of Evidence Act. Here in the present case there is no legal<\/p>\n
evidence which has duly been admitted even by the trial judge, inspite of that<\/p>\n
considering the news paper report and some happening in other part of the<\/p>\n
country as well as in order to give general message to the people of the<\/p>\n
country these appellants have been convicted and awarded death sentence.<\/p>\n
             9. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad counsel appearing for the State<\/p>\n
has admitted that there is no direct evidence against the accused appellants<\/p>\n
but he has made submission that there is supportive evidence of P.W.15<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate who had recorded statement of some of the witnesses. In<\/p>\n
support of his submission he has referred the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.15.<\/p>\n
On careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.15 I find that he has not<\/p>\n
proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7, rather he has proved the statement<\/p>\n
of P.W.2. P.W.15 has simply stated that he recorded the evidence of P.W.2<\/p>\n
but what was the statement recorded or whether P.W.2 has contradicted his<\/p>\n
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no cross examination<\/p>\n
on this point.In the evidence of P.W.15 I do not find that there is any cross<\/p>\n
examination on this point. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated in specific terms<\/p>\n
that he had simply disclosed the names of the appellants other than Ashok<\/p>\n
yadav who was sitting at betal shop.. His statement was that appellants who\n<\/p>\n
                             – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
were sitting at his betal shop, left the place after some time and went into the<\/p>\n
Mela. Two hours thereafter. occurrence took place. Though the statement<\/p>\n
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. legally should not have been perused<\/p>\n
even then     statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was<\/p>\n
perused and it was found that P.W.2 had only made this much of statement<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate. He had not disclosed names of any assailant, neither<\/p>\n
he stated that the appellants are the assailant. There is no evidence on record<\/p>\n
to show that appellants were member of unlawful assembly and as such they<\/p>\n
could have been convicted under Section 302\/149 as there is no direct<\/p>\n
evidence to show that appellants are the assailant. No evidence has been<\/p>\n
brought by the prosecution to show that these appellants had any knowledge<\/p>\n
regarding the offence going to be         committed by      unknown accused.<\/p>\n
Prosecution has not brought any evidence to indicate that presence of<\/p>\n
appellants in Mela was to commit the offence. In this circumstance, there<\/p>\n
cannot be presumption to hold that the appellants were members of unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly and could be convicted under Section 302\/149 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
            10. On consideration of the entire evidence on record I really feel<\/p>\n
sorry in the way the trial has been conducted. The deceased were police<\/p>\n
personnel even in such case non of the witness who are police personnels<\/p>\n
have supported the case of prosecution. All of them have been declared<\/p>\n
hostile. The trial court over looking all these aspects have convicted the<\/p>\n
appellants on presumption and conjectures. Reason which has been assigned<\/p>\n
for imposing death sentence to appellants is strange. This by any stretch    of<\/p>\n
imagination cannot be considered in accordance with law. The principle\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
                which has been laid down by the Apex Court in a case of Bachcha Singh Vrs<\/p>\n
                The State of Punjab, non of those principles I find applicable in the present<\/p>\n
                case specially when there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting the<\/p>\n
                appellants with the offence. It is a case in which there would have been no<\/p>\n
                conviction, what to say awarding punishment like death sentence.<\/p>\n
                             11. In the last I feel tempted to say that Additional Judge while<\/p>\n
                passing the impugned judgment has crossed all norms while convicting the<\/p>\n
                appellants, there being no legal evidence on record. The temptation of<\/p>\n
                publicity may be one of the reasons while passing the judgment of conviction<\/p>\n
                and imposing death sentence. Such temptations must be resisted by the<\/p>\n
                Judicial Officers. They are bound to deliver           judgments, and award<\/p>\n
                punishment in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                             12. Accordingly the death sentence imposed by the trial court is<\/p>\n
                not affirmed and Death Reference No.16 of 2007 is negative. Criminal<\/p>\n
                Appeal No. 1502 of 2007, Cr.Appeal No.7 of 2008 and Cr.Appeal No.10 of<\/p>\n
                2008 are allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellants<\/p>\n
                are set aside. All the appellants are in jail, they are directed to be released<\/p>\n
                forthwith, if not required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (Mridula Mishra, J)<\/p>\n
                             I agree<\/p>\n
                                                (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court
\nThe 18thday of Nov.2008
\nN.A.F.R.\/sss\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court 0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra DEATH REFERANC No.16 OF 2007 — Against the judgment and order dated 5.12.2007 and 6.12.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No9.593 of 2006\/ Trial No.238 of 2007 by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V), Banka. State of Bihar ——————(Appellant) Versus 1. […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 - 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\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-17T09:33:56+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T09:33:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3246,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\",\"name\":\"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T09:33:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 - 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\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-17T09:33:56+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T09:33:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008"},"wordCount":3246,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008","name":"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T09:33:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/0-vs-0-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"0 vs 0 on 18 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/117567","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=117567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}