{"id":12381,"date":"1999-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999"},"modified":"2016-02-17T07:15:06","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T01:45:06","slug":"rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T.Thomas, A.P.Misra<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAMMI ALIAS RAMESHWAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, A.P.Misra\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t manslaughter in an automobile in locomotion is\t the<br \/>\nsubject matter of this case.  The slaughtered man was a Home<br \/>\nGuard  personnel,  by  name Sardar Singh  Thakur.   When  he<br \/>\nboarded\t the  bus destined to Naseerabad on the\t evening  of<br \/>\n20.7.1985, he had no foreboding that it was his last journey<br \/>\nalive.\t Before\t the  bus could reach its  terminus  he\t was<br \/>\nfinished by armed assailants inside the vehicle while it was<br \/>\nin  motion.   Appellants  (Rammi alias Rameshwar  and  Bhura<br \/>\nalias  Sajjan Kumar) were two of the three persons arraigned<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Sessions  Court.\tThough\tthe  Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nacquitted  all of them a Division Bench of the High Court of<br \/>\nMadhya\tPradesh\t convicted the two appellants under  Section<br \/>\n302  read  with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them  to<br \/>\nimprisonment  for  life.   The third accused  (Suresh  alias<br \/>\nChhigga)  died\tbefore\tthe appeal was decided by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\t These\tappeals\t were  filed by\t the  two  convicted<br \/>\npersons\t as  of\t right\tunder Section 379  of  the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal  Procedure (for short the Code) and under Section<br \/>\n2  of  the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal  Appellate<br \/>\nJurisdiction) Act, 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  story  of  the prosecution, as  revealed  through<br \/>\nevidence,  can\tbe  summarised like this:  One\tChanna\tBabu<br \/>\n(brother  of appellant Rammi and late Chhigga) was  murdered<br \/>\nfor which the police charge-sheeted Sardar Singh Thakur (the<br \/>\ndeceased  in this case) and his brother Shyam Singh (PW-3 in<br \/>\nthis  case)  and a few others.\tFrom then on  these  accused<br \/>\nwere  thirsting\t for revenge for the murder of Channa  Babu.<br \/>\nThey  were  prowling for an opportune opportunity to  strike<br \/>\nback.  In such a background accused came to know that Sardar<br \/>\nSingh  Thakur  was travelling in a bus.\t Accused  wanted  to<br \/>\navail  themselves of that opportunity and boarded the bus on<br \/>\nthe  way.   After  the vehicle moved for some  distance\t the<br \/>\nassailants  mounted the attack on the deceased with  chopper<br \/>\nand knives.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  assailants  inflicted  as   many  as\t 12  incised<br \/>\ninjuries  on  Sardar  Singh  Thakur.   Those  who  tried  to<br \/>\nintervene  were\t told  by the assailants to mind  their\t own<br \/>\nbusiness  as  the attack was intended for a revenge.   After<br \/>\naccomplishing  the  object all the assailants alighted\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  vehicle and escaped from the scene.  The passengers  of<br \/>\nthe bus became frightened and most of them jumped out of the<br \/>\nvehicle and ran helter-skelter.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  stage carriage was then driven towards the police<br \/>\nstation\t by  its driver (PW-12 Jabbar Khan).  Ext.   P-12  &#8211;<br \/>\nFirst Information Statement was lodged at the police station<br \/>\nby  the\t conductor  of the vehicle  (PW-8  Ramashray).\t The<br \/>\naccused\t were  arrested and after interrogation the  weapons<br \/>\nused  for the murder were recovered by PW-13  Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer\t from  hidden  places on the basis  of\tinformations<br \/>\nelicited from the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There  is\t no doubt that deceased Sardar Singh  Thakur<br \/>\nwas  murdered inside the said bus at about 5 P.M.  while the<br \/>\nbus  was  in motion.  In fact that part of the case  is\t not<br \/>\ncontroverted  by  the appellants.  The dispute\tnow  centers<br \/>\nround  the  identity of the assailants.\t PW-8 Ramashray\t and<br \/>\nPW-12  Jabbar  Khan  supported the case of  the\t prosecution<br \/>\nregarding the identity of the assailants, besides one of the<br \/>\npassengers  of\tthe  bus (PW-9 Ram Dulare).  But  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  was  not\t impressed by their evidence.  Nor  did\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court place any reliance on the evidence relating  to<br \/>\nthe recovery of weapons which the prosecution adduced as per<br \/>\nSection\t 27 of the Evidence Act.  But the Division Bench  of<br \/>\nthe High Court made complete reversal of the findings of the<br \/>\ntrial\tjudge  and  made  a  scathing  observation  in\t the<br \/>\npenultimate  paragraph\tof  the judgment  under\t appeal,  as<br \/>\nunder:\t Before parting with this appeal, we cannot  resist<br \/>\nfrom  observing that the perverse reasoning and\t conclusions<br \/>\ngiven by the trial judge in appreciating the evidence in the<br \/>\ninstant case cannot be supported.  Such unrealistic approach<br \/>\nin  appreciating  evidence  in a criminal  case\t shakes\t the<br \/>\nconfidence of the society in the legal system itself and our<br \/>\ninterference, therefore, is urgently called for.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri  Uday  Umesh\t Lalit,\t  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants  contended that the reasoning of the trial  judge<br \/>\nregarding  different items of incriminating evidence did not<br \/>\nwarrant\t interference in an appeal against acquittal as\t the<br \/>\nviews  expressed  by the trial judge were not  unreasonable.<br \/>\nLearned counsel dealt with the evidence almost threadbare in<br \/>\nhis  endeavour\tto  show  that the sessions  judge  was\t not<br \/>\naltogether wrong in acquitting the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      PW-9  Ram\t Dulare\t (a  passenger in the  bus)  in\t his<br \/>\nevidence  said\tthat  he saw the  appellants  attacking\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  with chopper and knives.  The trial court  pointed<br \/>\nout  that he did not inform the members of the family of the<br \/>\ndeceased  nor did he bring this matter to the notice of\t the<br \/>\npolice.\t  The Sessions Judge regarded the above as a conduct<br \/>\nincompatible   with  the  normal   behaviour  of  a   person<br \/>\nwitnessing such a crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Such a remark on the conduct of a person who witnessed<br \/>\nthe  murderous\tattack\tis least justified in the  realm  of<br \/>\nappreciation  of  evidence.   This Court has said  time\t and<br \/>\nagain  that the post event conduct of a witness varies\tfrom<br \/>\nperson\tto person.  It cannot be a cast-iron reaction to  be<br \/>\nfollowed  as  a\t model by everyone  witnessing\tsuch  event.<br \/>\nDifferent  persons  would  react differently on\t seeing\t any<br \/>\nviolence  and their behaviour and conduct would,  therefore,<br \/>\nbe  different.\t We have not noticed anything which  can  be<br \/>\nregarded as an abnormal conduct of PW-9 Ram Dulare.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Nonetheless,  there are two broad circumstances  which<br \/>\nwould  bridle  the court from placing full reliance  on\t the<br \/>\nevidence of PW-9.  First is, though his name appeared in the<br \/>\nFirst  Information Statement its author PW-8 (the  conductor<br \/>\nof  the bus) said in his evidence that Ram Dulare was not  a<br \/>\nperson\t known\tto  him.   Second   is,\t PW-9  has  said  in<br \/>\ncross-examination that he did not mention anything about the<br \/>\nincident  to anybody else at all until he was questioned  by<br \/>\nthe police.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Though  the aforesaid two incongruities came on record<br \/>\nduring\tcross-examination no attempt whatsoever was made  by<br \/>\nthe  Additional Public Prosecutor to secure any\t explanation<br \/>\nregarding such aspects.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Regarding\t the  recovery of weapons,  the\t prosecution<br \/>\ncould  utilize\tstatements attributed to the accused on\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of  which recovery of certain weapons  was  effected.<br \/>\nSection\t  27  of  the  Evidence\t  Act  permits\tso  much  of<br \/>\ninformation  which  lead  to the discovery of a fact  to  be<br \/>\nadmitted  in  evidence.\t  Here the fact\t discovered  by\t the<br \/>\npolice\twas  that the accused had hidden  the  blood-stained<br \/>\nweapons.   In  that sphere what could have been admitted  in<br \/>\nevidence  is only that part of the information which accused<br \/>\nhad  furnished\tto the police officer and which led  to\t the<br \/>\nrecovery of the weapons.\n<\/p>\n<p>      True, such information is admissible in evidence under<br \/>\nSection\t 27  of\t the Evidence Act, but\tadmissibility  alone<br \/>\nwould  not  render  the evidence, pertaining  to  the  above<br \/>\ninformation,  reliable.\t  While testing the  reliability  of<br \/>\nsuch   evidence\t the  court  has  to  see  whether  it\t was<br \/>\nvoluntarily stated by the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>      PW-13  Investigating Officer has said in his evidence<br \/>\nthat  the accused were arrested on the succeeding day of the<br \/>\noccurrence from a different place and they were interrogated<br \/>\nby  him.  But PW-12 (the driver of the bus) has said in\t his<br \/>\nevidence  that\tafter he reached the police station  on\t the<br \/>\nsame  evening  he  saw the three accused inside\t the  police<br \/>\nstation.  We do not know whether it was an error which PW-12<br \/>\ncommitted  during  cross-examination.  No doubt\t the  Public<br \/>\nProsecutor  who conducted the prosecution did not choose  to<br \/>\nput any question to PW-12 also in re- examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      As  it is, there is material discrepancy regarding the<br \/>\ntime  when police took the accused in custody.\tIf PW-13  is<br \/>\ncorrect\t the  accused would have been arrested only  on\t the<br \/>\nsucceeding  day of occurrence.\tBut if PW-12 is correct\t the<br \/>\naccused\t should\t have been interrogated on the very  day  of<br \/>\noccurrence  in\twhich  case the accused would  have  had  no<br \/>\noccasion to conceal the weapons.\n<\/p>\n<p>      With  the\t above scrutiny we are unable to  place\t any<br \/>\nreliance  on the evidence of PW-13 regarding recovery of the<br \/>\nweapons\t at the instance of the accused.  In this context we<br \/>\nare tempted to observe that the Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nwho   conducted\t  prosecution  has    not   discharged\t his<br \/>\nresponsibility\tas he avoided putting any question to  those<br \/>\nwitnesses  when\t an  opportunity   for\tre-examination\t was<br \/>\nprovided to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  very\t purpose  of re-examination  is\t to  explain<br \/>\nmatters\t which have been brought down in  cross-examination.<br \/>\nSection\t 138  of the Evidence Act outlines the amplitude  of<br \/>\nre-examination.\t    It\t reads\t   thus:    Direction\t of<br \/>\nre-examination.-  The  re- examination shall be directed  to<br \/>\nthe explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination;<br \/>\nand if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced<br \/>\nin   re-examination,   the  adverse    party   may   further<br \/>\ncross-examine upon that matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There  is an erroneous impression that  re-examination<br \/>\nshould\tbe  confined to clarification of  ambiguities  which<br \/>\nhave  been  brought  down in cross-examination.\t  No  doubt,<br \/>\nambiguities  can  be resolved through  re-examination.\t But<br \/>\nthat  is  not the only function of the re-examiner.  If\t the<br \/>\nparty  who  called  the witness feels  that  explanation  is<br \/>\nrequired  for any matter referred to in cross-examination he<br \/>\nhas the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get<br \/>\nthe explanation.  The Public Prosecutor should formulate his<br \/>\nquestions  for\tthat purpose.  Explanation may\tbe  required<br \/>\neither\twhen ambiguity remains regarding any answer elicited<br \/>\nduring\tcross-examination or even otherwise.  If the  Public<br \/>\nProsecutor   feels  that  certain   answers   require\tmore<br \/>\nelucidation  from  the\twitness he has the freedom  and\t the<br \/>\nright  to put such questions as he deems necessary for\tthat<br \/>\npurpose,  subject  of course to the control of the court  in<br \/>\naccordance  with the other provisions.\tBut the court cannot<br \/>\ndirect\thim  to confine his questions to  ambiguities  alone<br \/>\nwhich arose in cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Even  if the Public Prosecutor feels that new  matters<br \/>\nshould\tbe elicited from the witness he can do so, in  which<br \/>\ncase  the only requirement is that he must secure permission<br \/>\nof the court.  If the Court thinks that such new matters are<br \/>\nnecessary  for\tproving\t any material fact, courts  must  be<br \/>\nliberal in granting permission to put necessary questions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t Public\t Prosecutor who is attentive  during  cross-<br \/>\nexamination  cannot but be sensitive to discern which answer<br \/>\nin  cross-examination  requires explanation.   An  efficient<br \/>\nPublic\tProsecutor would gather up such answers falling from<br \/>\nthe   mouth  of\t a   witness  during  cross-examination\t and<br \/>\nformulate  necessary questions to be put in  re-examination.<br \/>\nThere is no warrant that re-examination should be limited to<br \/>\none  or two questions.\tIf the exigency requires any  number<br \/>\nof questions can be asked in re-examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      But  in this case the Additional Public Prosecutor  in<br \/>\nthe  trial  court seemed oblivious of such a right.   It  is<br \/>\nrather\tamazing that he did not avail himself of that  right<br \/>\nin  respect of a single witness.  The defence counsel  would<br \/>\nhave  had  a free day as he was left totally undisturbed  by<br \/>\nthe  Public  Prosecutor.  Be that as it\t may,  side-stepping<br \/>\nabove items of evidence is hardly sufficient to end the woes<br \/>\nof the appellant because the prosecution examined two of the<br \/>\nmost important witnesses to the occurrence, PW-8 Ramashray &#8211;<br \/>\nthe conductor, and PW-12 Jabbar Khan &#8211; the driver.\n<\/p>\n<p>      PW-8  had given three former statements regarding\t the<br \/>\noccurrence  (Ext.P-12  the First Information Statement,\t and<br \/>\nthen  what the Investigating Officer recorded under  Section<br \/>\n161  of the Code, and another statement which the magistrate<br \/>\nrecorded  under\t Section  164  of the  Code).\tThe  defence<br \/>\ncounsel used all those three statements to ferret out one or<br \/>\ntwo  omissions\ttherefrom for confronting PW-8.\t  The  trial<br \/>\ncourt on the strength of such answers castigated PW-8.\tThis<br \/>\nwas  what  the\tSessions Judge said  about  their  evidence:<br \/>\nRamshray  (PW-8)  stood contradicted on material and  vital<br \/>\npoints from the first information report Ex.P.11, case diary<br \/>\nstatement  ex.D-1.   Those  contradictions   relate  to\t the<br \/>\nmaterial  and  vital points.  These details go to show\tthat<br \/>\nRamshray  (PW-8) is not a truthful or reliable witness.\t  He<br \/>\nwas made to modulate his version but to suit the prosecution<br \/>\ncase  and  it is not safe to place implicit reliance on\t his<br \/>\ntestimony.  The evidence of this witness appears artificial,<br \/>\nunnatural   and\t improbable  and   suffers  from   intrinsic<br \/>\ninfirmities.   In the circumstances, his testimony cannot be<br \/>\naccepted on its face value.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri  Uday  Umesah  Lalit,  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant  tried to support the said reasoning of the  trial<br \/>\ncourt.\tWe feel that the approach made by the trial court in<br \/>\ngroping for discrepancies in the testimony of such important<br \/>\nwitnesses had resulted in the unmerited acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      When  eye-witness\t is examined at length it  is  quite<br \/>\npossible  for  him  to\tmake some  discrepancies.   No\ttrue<br \/>\nwitness\t can  possibly\tescape from making  some  discrepant<br \/>\ndetails.   Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can<br \/>\nsuccessfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant.\t But<br \/>\ncourts\t should\t  bear\tin  mind   that\t it  is\t only\twhen<br \/>\ndiscrepancies\tin  the\t evidence  of\ta  witness  are\t  so<br \/>\nincompatible  with  the credibility of his version that\t the<br \/>\ncourt  is  justified in jettisoning his evidence.   But\t too<br \/>\nserious\t a view to be adopted on mere variations falling  in<br \/>\nthe narration of an incident (either as between the evidence<br \/>\nof  two\t witnesses or as between two statements of the\tsame<br \/>\nwitness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is  a common practice in trial courts to make\t out<br \/>\ncontradictions\tfrom  previous\tstatement of a\twitness\t for<br \/>\nconfronting  him  during cross-examination.  Merely  because<br \/>\nthere  is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient  to<br \/>\nimpair\tthe credit of the witness.  No doubt Section 155  of<br \/>\nthe Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of<br \/>\na  witness by proof of inconsistent former statement.  But a<br \/>\nreading\t of the Section would indicate that all inconsistent<br \/>\nstatements  are not sufficient to impeach the credit of\t the<br \/>\nwitness.   The material portion of the Section is  extracted<br \/>\nbelow:\t 155.  Impeaching credit of witness.- The credit of<br \/>\na  witness  maybe  impeached in the following  ways  by\t the<br \/>\nadverse\t party,\t or, with the consent of the court,  by\t the<br \/>\nparty who calls him<\/p>\n<p>      (3)  by  proof of former statements inconsistent\twith<br \/>\nany   part   of\t his  evidence\t which\tis  liable   to\t  be<br \/>\ncontradicted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t former statement though seemingly inconsistent with<br \/>\nthe evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to<br \/>\ncontradiction.\t Only  such  of the  inconsistent  statement<br \/>\nwhich is liable to be contradicted would affect the credit<br \/>\nof  the\t witness.   Section  145 of the\t Evidence  Act\talso<br \/>\nenables\t the  cross-examiner to use any former statement  of<br \/>\nthe  witness,  but  it cautions that if it  is\tintended  to<br \/>\ncontradict  the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined\tto<br \/>\ncomply\twith the formality prescribed therein.\tSection\t 162<br \/>\nof  Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous<br \/>\nstatement  of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the<br \/>\nCode)  for  the only limited purpose, i.e.  to\tcontradict<br \/>\nthe witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>      To  contradict  a\t witness,   therefore,\tmust  be  to<br \/>\ndiscredit the particular version of the witness.  Unless the<br \/>\nformer\tstatement  has the potency to discredit the  present<br \/>\nstatement, even if the latter is at variance with the former<br \/>\nto  some  extent it would not be helpful to contradict\tthat<br \/>\nwitness, (vide Tahsildar Singh and anr.\t vs.  State of U.P.,<br \/>\nAIR 1959 SC 1012).\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  this\tcase the evidence of the conductor  and\t the<br \/>\ndriver\tof  the\t bus evinces credibility.   As\tpointed\t out<br \/>\nearlier\t they are the most natural witnesses for the  murder<br \/>\nwhich took place inside the bus.  The minor variations which<br \/>\nthe  defence counsel discovered from their former statements<br \/>\ndid not amount to discredit the core of their evidence.\t The<br \/>\nstrained  reasoning of the Sessions Judge for  side-stepping<br \/>\ntheir evidence is too fragile for judicial countenance.\t The<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t of the High Court has rightly reversed\t the<br \/>\nfinding regarding the credibility of their evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the aforesaid reasons we agree with the High Court<br \/>\nthat appellants are liable to be convicted under Section 302<br \/>\nof the IPC.  We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T.Thomas, A.P.Misra PETITIONER: RAMMI ALIAS RAMESHWAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/1999 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, A.P.Misra JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. A manslaughter in an automobile in locomotion is the subject matter of this case. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12381","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-17T01:45:06+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T01:45:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2657,\"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\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\",\"name\":\"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T01:45:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-17T01:45:06+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T01:45:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999"},"wordCount":2657,"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\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999","name":"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T01:45:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rammi-alias-rameshwar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12381","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=12381"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12381\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}