{"id":127306,"date":"2003-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003"},"modified":"2017-02-23T17:15:31","modified_gmt":"2017-02-23T11:45:31","slug":"jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003","title":{"rendered":"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1262 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nJai Karan and Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of U.P.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppellants having unsuccessfully challenged their conviction<br \/>\nbefore the Allahabad High Court have filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThey along with two others, namely, Mahesh and Bhan Chand faced<br \/>\ntrial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 148,<br \/>\n302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860<br \/>\n(in short the &#8216;IPC&#8217;). The trial Court acquitted Mahesh and Bhan Chand on<br \/>\nall counts, but convicted the present appellants. So far as accused Jai<br \/>\nKaran and Babu were concerned, they are convicted under Sections 148,<br \/>\n302 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 IPC and accused Veer Bhadra was<br \/>\nconvicted under Section 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 323 read with<br \/>\n149 IPC. They were each awarded life sentence for the offences<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC as the case may<br \/>\nbe, and two years and six months for the offence under Sections 148 and<br \/>\n323 read with 149 IPC respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe convicted accused persons preferred appeal against their<br \/>\nconviction, while the State preferred appeal against the acquittal. Both<br \/>\nthe appeals were heard together in view of the common factual matrix and<br \/>\nwere disposed of by the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProsecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe informant-Ashok Kumar Singh (PW-1) is the son of Surya Prakash<br \/>\nSingh (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;deceased&#8217;). At the time of the<br \/>\nincident the informant, deceased Surya Prakash Singh and another<br \/>\ndeceased Ram Lal, injured Ram Chandra Singh (PW-2) and appellants Jai<br \/>\nKaran, Veer Bhadra and Babu were living in village Alaipur within the<br \/>\nlimit of police station Sidhauli district Sitapur. Appellants Veer<br \/>\nBhadra and Jai Karan  are real brothers and appellant Babu is son of<br \/>\ntheir maternal uncle. There was enmity between Veer Bhadra and Jai Karan<br \/>\non one side and deceased Surya Prakash Singh on the other.  Few months<br \/>\nbefore the incident, Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan, their brother Pyarey Lal<br \/>\nand a relative had attacked Surya Prakash Singh with pistol and bhala.<br \/>\nSurya Prakash Singh who had suffered injuries lodged FIR against Mahesh,<br \/>\nVeer Bhadra and his others.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn the date of the incident i.e.17.12.1978 at about 4.00 p.m.<br \/>\ndeceased Surya Prakash Singh was sitting on a cot in his courtyard<br \/>\nsituated at a short distance from the door of his house. His servant<br \/>\ndeceased Ram Lal was weeding potato crop in the field situated to north<br \/>\nof the said courtyard. Informant Ashok Kumar Singh (PW-1) Ram Chandra<br \/>\nSingh (PW-2) Vishwanath Shukla and Narendra Singh (PW-3) were sitting<br \/>\nnear the door of his house. Suddenly, appellants Veer Bhadra, Jai Karan<br \/>\nand Babu armed with guns along with two unknown persons, one of whom was<br \/>\narmed with a kanta and the other with a banka came. Immediately,<br \/>\nappellant Veer Bhadra fired at deceased Surya Prakash Singh, as a<br \/>\nconsequence of which he fell down. When informant Ashok Kumar Singh<br \/>\n(PW1), deceased Ram Lal and others rushed to rescue deceased Surya<br \/>\nPrakash Singh, appellants Jai Karan and Babu fired; the former on Surya<br \/>\nPrakash Singh and the latter on Ram Lal. Jai Karan also assaulted Ram<br \/>\nChandra Singh (PW2) with the barrel of gun. The two unknown persons<br \/>\nassaulted Surya Prakash Singh with kanta and banka. After murdering<br \/>\nSurya Prakash Singh and Ram Lal and injuring Ram Chandra the appellants<br \/>\nand the unknown persons ran away.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe first information report was lodged by Ashok Kumar Singh<br \/>\n(PW1). Two others namely Ramchandra Singh (PW2) and Narender Singh (PW3)<br \/>\nwere stated to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.  Investigation<br \/>\nwas undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was placed. It has<br \/>\nto be noted that the accused persons had also lodged an information in<br \/>\nthe police alleging that the deceased Surya Prakash Singh and his<br \/>\nrelatives assaulted some of the accused persons.  During trial, they<br \/>\ndenied the allegations and claimed that they had been falsely<br \/>\nimplicated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSixteen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution<br \/>\nversion. Three of them i.e. PWs 1, 2 and 3 were claimed to be<br \/>\neyewitnesses. Accused Bhan Chand and Mahesh examined one witness. No<br \/>\nother oral evidence was led by any of the accused. Placing reliance on<br \/>\nthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly the injured<br \/>\nwitness and other eyewitnesses, the present appellant accused persons<br \/>\nwere found guilty, convicted and sentenced as afore noted. The plea of<br \/>\ninnocence raised by the accused was held to be full of holes and as<br \/>\nindicated supra the conviction and sentence as awarded stood confirmed.<br \/>\nThe appeal filed by the State was held to be without merit and was<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is doubtful<br \/>\nwhether PW2 was injured in the incident as claimed. The trial Court and<br \/>\nthe High Court have lost sight of the fact that in view of the admitted<br \/>\nanimosity between the accused and the deceased Surya Prakash Singh, the<br \/>\nevidence of so-called eyewitnesses should not have been acted upon.<br \/>\nImprovements were made by witnesses in Court to bring the medical<br \/>\nevidence in line with the ocular evidence. That itself rendered the<br \/>\nauthenticity of medical evidence inapplicable. As improvements were made<br \/>\non material points, the Courts below should not have held that the<br \/>\nmedical evidence was in consonance with the oral evidence. The statement<br \/>\nof the so-called injured witness (PW2) was recorded after a day in the<br \/>\nafternoon. He had suffered some minor injuries and a non-examination for<br \/>\na day casts grave doubt on the authenticity of his evidence. The<br \/>\nInvestigating Officer in order to explain the delayed examination stated<br \/>\nthat the witness was in a dazed state; but the injured does not say so,<br \/>\nand this is nothing but a lame explanation. There is grave doubt about<br \/>\nPW2&#8217;s presence because of his sudden appearance at the place of<br \/>\noccurrence. He stated that he came to the house of Madan Lal and then to<br \/>\nthe house of deceased Surya Prakash Singh. Though, he was sent for<br \/>\nmedical examination on the alleged date of occurrence, his statement was<br \/>\nrecorded on the next day and there was ample time to make improvements.<br \/>\nThough in the statement during investigation it was not stated that<br \/>\nSurya Prakash Singh had stood up on seeing the accused persons, it was<br \/>\nso stated in Court.  It was done tactfully as the injuries found on his<br \/>\nbody were possible only if he was standing.  The object was to bring<br \/>\nocular evidence at par with the medical evidence. These improvements<br \/>\nshould have been noticed by the courts below to render prosecution<br \/>\nversion vulnerable. In the FIR, there was no mention about assault by<br \/>\nbarrel of gun. PW2 stayed in the house of deceased for about 35 years<br \/>\nand he was friendly with him. The time of injury as stated by Doctor<br \/>\ndoes not fit in with the alleged time of occurrence. The reaction of the<br \/>\nwitnesses was most unnatural when considered in the background of their<br \/>\nclaim that they were eyewitnesses and when a known person who is closely<br \/>\nrelated and friendly with them was being assaulted; their reaction would<br \/>\nhave been certainly different. Prosecution has tried to introduce the<br \/>\npresence of two other persons just for the purpose of bringing in<br \/>\napplication of Section 149 IPC and acquittal of the two persons clearly<br \/>\nshows how unauthentic prosecution version is. Merely because the FIR was<br \/>\nlodged immediately as claimed, that does not strengthen the prosecution<br \/>\ncase because of admitted hostility. In view of the fact that the<br \/>\nevidence of PW-3 has not been held to be reliable, it is clear that the<br \/>\nprosecution has not come to Court with clean hands.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn response, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is<br \/>\nno infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court and the<br \/>\nHigh Court to warrant any interference. The evidence has been analysed<br \/>\nin great detail and with great care and circumspection in view of the<br \/>\nfact that the accused and deceased were in inimical terms; and the<br \/>\nwitnesses were either relatives or known to the deceased-Surya Prakash<br \/>\nSingh. There is no doubt about the presence of PW2 who was an injured<br \/>\nwitness and the hypothetical scenario as projected by the accused<br \/>\nappellants does not have any leg to stand.  The doctor (PW4) has clearly<br \/>\nstated as to the time of injury and it rules out the possibility that he<br \/>\nsustained injury at the time of incident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court has found the evidence of PW-2 to be cogent,<br \/>\ncredible and trust-worthy. His evidence shows that on the date of<br \/>\noccurrence he along with A.K. Singh (PW-1) and Narendra Singh (PW-3) and<br \/>\none Vishwanath (not examined) were sitting near the door of deceased. At<br \/>\nthat time Ram Lal was weeding potato crops sown in the field near the<br \/>\nhouse of deceased-Surya Prakash Singh who was sitting on cot and reading<br \/>\nthe newspaper. At this juncture, the three accused appellants armed with<br \/>\nguns and two unknown persons also armed with various weapons came to the<br \/>\nplace. Veer Bhadra fired a shot at Surya Prakash Singh and thereafter<br \/>\nJai Karan and Babu fired; which hit the two deceased persons.<br \/>\nThereafter, the accused Jai Karan assaulted Ramchandra Singh (PW2) with<br \/>\nthe barrel of a gun and those unknown persons also assaulted deceased<br \/>\nSurya Prakash Singh with kanta and banka. Thereafter the accused persons<br \/>\nran away.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter considering his evidence in toto, the High Court found the<br \/>\nevidence to be implicitly truthful and reliable. Though his presence was<br \/>\nattempted to be shown as doubtful, we do not find any reason to accept<br \/>\nthe plea. His presence at the place of incident was explained and his<br \/>\nevidence cannot be thrown out as unreliable or tainted, merely because<br \/>\nin some cases he was a co-accused with the deceased Surya Prakash Singh.<br \/>\nThis circumstance would not warrant mechanical rejection of his<br \/>\ntestimony. Evaluation with caution was needed, which has been done. The<br \/>\nmanner of assaults as described by him is also corroborated by medical<br \/>\nevidence. The plea that improvements were made to bring the ocular<br \/>\nevidence in line with the medical evidence is clearly without substance.<br \/>\nWe have read the evidence and found that whatever was stated was by way<br \/>\nof a clarification and certainty cannot be termed to be an improvement.<br \/>\nTherefore, the evidence of PW2 alone was sufficient to fasten guilt on<br \/>\nthe accused appellants.  But, added to that is the evidence of PW1, the<br \/>\ninformant, which  further strengthens the prosecution version. The First<br \/>\nInformation Report was lodged with promptitude. Merely because PW2 was<br \/>\nexamined after some time, the reason thereof has been clearly explained<br \/>\nby the investigating officer who stated that after the information was<br \/>\nlodged by PW1 at the police station he interrogated him and thereafter<br \/>\nleft for the place of incident which he reached at 8.45 P.M.  So far as<br \/>\ntime of injury on PW2 is concerned, the opinion of PW4 (doctor) is<br \/>\nclearly hypothetical.  He himself has stated that there can be a margin<br \/>\nof 2-3 hours. That being so, credible evidence of eyewitnesses does not<br \/>\nbecome tainted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tGreat emphasis was led on the approximate time of injury. That in<br \/>\nno way affects the credibility of PW2&#8217;s evidence. Though evidence of PW1<br \/>\ndoes not specifically indicate the injury on PW2 that is but natural.<br \/>\nBefore a young person two murders were committed and it is quite natural<br \/>\nto create a sense of shock and minor variations in his evidence do not<br \/>\naffect his testimony which is otherwise credible. Unless the medical<br \/>\nevidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all<br \/>\npossibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged<br \/>\nby eye-witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown<br \/>\nout on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical<br \/>\nevidence. <a href=\"\/doc\/1807304\/\">(See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR<\/a> 1983<br \/>\nSC 484). To similar effect is the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/10271\/\">State of U.P. v. Krishna<br \/>\nGopal and Anr. (AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 2154).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThat being the position, the High Court was justified in<br \/>\ndismissing the appeals filed by the accused appellants before it. We<br \/>\nfind no reason to take a different view. The appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1262 of 2002 PETITIONER: Jai Karan and Ors. RESPONDENT: State of U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: J U D G [&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-127306","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>Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 - 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\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-23T11:45:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T11:45:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2029,\"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\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\",\"name\":\"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T11:45:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 - 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\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-23T11:45:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003","datePublished":"2003-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T11:45:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003"},"wordCount":2029,"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\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003","name":"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T11:45:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-karan-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-october-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Karan And Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2003"}]},{"@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\/127306","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=127306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}