{"id":131284,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-21T09:54:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T04:24:42","slug":"rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A.L.Dave,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/6\/2003\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 6 of 2003\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAMESHBHAI\nKIKALABHAI BARIYA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nTHROUGH\nJAIL for Appellant(s)\n: 1,MS FARHANA Y MANSURI for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR UR BHATT, APP\nfor Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 24\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tBy<br \/>\npreferring this appeal, the appellant who was original accused in<br \/>\nSessions Case No. 128\/2001, has challenged the legality and validity<br \/>\nof the impugned judgment and order dated 29\/11\/2002 passed by the Ld.<br \/>\nAddl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, [for short<br \/>\n&#8216;Ld. Trial Judge&#8217;] in the aforesaid Sessions Case. The Ld. Trial<br \/>\nJudge was pleased to convict the appellant   accused for the<br \/>\noffences punishable   under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code [IPC] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI]<br \/>\nof 3 years, RI of 5 years and RI of 10 years respectively with fine.<br \/>\nBeing aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder, the original accused preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nfacts, in short, leading to the prosecution case are as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1.\t\tOn<br \/>\n23\/2\/2001 at about 6.30 a.m., Hansaben, daughter of Javsing Vestabhai<br \/>\nParmar, was returning to her home after attending the natural call,<br \/>\nat that time the appellant   accused along with one Kamleshbhai and<br \/>\nShardaben [both juvenile offenders] intercepted Hansaben and she was<br \/>\nkidnapped in a car with intention to compel her to marry against her<br \/>\nwill and that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.<br \/>\nThat at that time Hansaben was aged about 15 years and thus she was<br \/>\nkidnapped from her guardianship. As per the prosecution case, the<br \/>\nappellant   accused caused sexual intercourse with Hansaben.<br \/>\nNavsing Vestabhai lodged  police complaint in connection with these<br \/>\noffences before the police. The police registered the complaint and<br \/>\ncommenced investigation. The police recorded statements of material<br \/>\nwitnesses and collected medical evidence of Hansaben and the accused<br \/>\nand after completion of the investigation, the police filed<br \/>\ncharge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the Ld. Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate First Class, Bharuch.  Since the offence was exclusive<br \/>\ntriable by the Court of Sessions, the Ld. Magistrate committed the<br \/>\ncase to the Court of Sessions. The Ld. Trial Judge framed charge<br \/>\nagainst accused at exh. 9. Since the accused did not plead guilty and<br \/>\nclaimed to be tried, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary<br \/>\nevidence. After completion of the evidence adduced by the<br \/>\nprosecution, the Ld. Trial Judge recorded the further statement of<br \/>\nthe accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.<br \/>\nP.C.], wherein the accused pleaded denial and stated that because of<br \/>\nsome monetary dispute, he was falsely implicated in this case. The<br \/>\nLd. Trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record and after<br \/>\nhearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties,  delivered<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment and order and the Ld. Trial Judge came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the<br \/>\noffences charges against the accused and passed order of conviction<br \/>\nand  sentence as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tOn<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant   accused, learned advocate Ms. Mansuri<br \/>\nsubmitted that the impugned judgment and order delivered by the trial<br \/>\nCourt is contrary to law and evidence on record. That the basic<br \/>\ndefect in the prosecution case is the name of the prosecutrix. As per<br \/>\nthe prosecution case, the name of the prosecutrix is Hansaben.<br \/>\nHowever, considering the copy of birth certificate produced at exh.<br \/>\n34 in this case, the name which is shown is &#8216;Sanudiben&#8217; and<br \/>\nthe date of birth of Sanudiben is shown to be 24\/10\/1986. Prosecution<br \/>\ndid not produce any certificate wherein the name of Hansaben appears.<br \/>\nThat the panchas who are examined by the prosecution relating to<br \/>\npanchnama  of scene of occurrence and panchnama of recovery of cloth<br \/>\nof the prosecutrix, have turned hostile. That the deposition of<br \/>\nHansaben is full of material contradictions. That the prosecution<br \/>\nmiserably failed to prove that at the time of so called offence, the<br \/>\nprosecutrix was aged about 15 years. That the so called motor car in<br \/>\nwhich the prosecutrix was alleged to have been kidnapped, is not<br \/>\nseized by the police. That no test identification parade of the<br \/>\naccused  was held by the police. That the evidence adduced by the<br \/>\nprosecution is quite unnatural and without any credibility.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court  be set aside<br \/>\nand the appellant   accused be acquitted from all the offences<br \/>\ncharged against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tOn<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondent   State, Ld. APP Mr. Bhatt fully supported<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment and order delivered by the Ld. Trial Judge. It<br \/>\nis submitted that by documentary evidence, the prosecution<br \/>\nsuccessfully proved that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was<br \/>\n24\/10\/1986, the incident took place on 23\/2\/2001. Therefore, at the<br \/>\ntime of incident, the prosecutrix was below 15 years of age. That<br \/>\nconsidering the deposition of prosecutrix herself together with<br \/>\ndepositions of her father Javsing Vestabhai and uncle [first<br \/>\ninformant] Navsing Parmar, it has come on record that  Hansaben was<br \/>\nknown as Sanudiben. That thus the name of  Hansaben was &#8216;Sanudi&#8217;.<br \/>\nThat, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the birth registration<br \/>\ncertificate produced by the prosecution and said certificate relates<br \/>\nto the prosecutrix. That prosecutrix  Hansaben categorically<br \/>\ndescribed the incident, she deposed in clear terms that the accused<br \/>\ncaused sexual intercourse with her while she was abducted by him and<br \/>\nwas under his control. That the version given by the prosecutrix in<br \/>\nher deposition on oath gets support by medical evidence. Therefore,<br \/>\nit is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tThe<br \/>\ndeposition of prosecutrix &#8211; Hansaben Parmar is recorded at exh. 20.<br \/>\nFirst of all, considering her deposition, she clearly stated that her<br \/>\nnickname  is Sanudi. In her deposition  she described the incident<br \/>\nabout her kidnapping by the accused and two juvenile offenders named<br \/>\nKamlesh and Shardaben. She stated that in a Tata Sumo car  she was<br \/>\ntaken to various places. According to her say, accused kept her with<br \/>\nhim for the period of appropriately two months and during this<br \/>\nperiod, on more than one occasion, the accused caused sexual<br \/>\nintercourse with her without her consent. Considering the<br \/>\ncross-examination made on behalf of the defence  of the prosecutrix,<br \/>\nit appears that the defence intended to take up a defence that this<br \/>\nwas a case of love affairs between the prosecutrix and the accused.<br \/>\nHowever, she outrightly denied the suggestion that the accused was<br \/>\nknown to her.  However, she stated that by name, she was knowing the<br \/>\naccused, but denied the suggestion regarding her having any affairs<br \/>\nwith the accused. Considering her cross-examination, no dispute<br \/>\nregarding her age appears to have been raised. Only argument advanced<br \/>\non behalf of the appellant accused is about the name mentioned in the<br \/>\nbirth certificate exh. 34 that the certificate bears the name of<br \/>\nSanudi;  whereas prosecutrix is  Hansaben. However,  Hansaben herself<br \/>\ndeposed that her nickname is Sanudiben. Over and above this,<br \/>\nconsidering the deposition of her father Javsing Parmar exh. 30 and<br \/>\ndeposition of her uncle Navsing Parmar exh. 19, who is the first<br \/>\ninformant before the police, it clearly transpires that both these<br \/>\nwitnesses deposed that nickname of  Hansaben is Sanudi.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of above, considering the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld.<br \/>\nTrial Judge, it clearly transpires that the Ld. Trial Judge<br \/>\nelaborately discussed the depositions of  Hansaben   the<br \/>\nprosecutrix, her father and her uncle and rightly came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that nickname of prosecutrix  Hansaben is Sanudiben and<br \/>\nthe birth certificate exh. 34 relates to her. As emerged from the<br \/>\nevidence on record and as appreciated the said evidence in the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld.<br \/>\nTrial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that at the time of<br \/>\nincident, the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years. When such is the<br \/>\nsituation, even if there be any consent from the side of the<br \/>\nprosecutrix, the same cannot be considered. However, considering the<br \/>\nentire deposition of  Hansaben, there is nothing that there was any<br \/>\nlove affair between herself and the accused and that she ever<br \/>\nconsented for sexual intercourse.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe medical evidence on record in the form of deposition of Dr.<br \/>\nMakwana exh. 40 and the certificate exh. 42, it is revealed that<br \/>\nthere was tear of hymen and that she had undergone repeated<br \/>\nintercourses. Thus, the Ld. Trial Judge rightly came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the version of the prosecutrix is supported by<br \/>\nmedical evidence on record. When such is the situation, the fact that<br \/>\nPanchas of the panchnamas regarding the scene of offence and the<br \/>\nrecovery of cloth of the prosecutrix, turned hostile, or that the car<br \/>\nwhich was used by the accused for kidnapping the prosecutrix was not<br \/>\nseized by the police, can never be a ground to acquit the appellant<br \/>\naccused, discarding the cogent and credit worthy evidence adduced by<br \/>\nthe prosecution to connect the accused with the crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves<br \/>\nto be dismissed. The appeal,  therefore, stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t(<br \/>\nA. L. DAVE,  J.)<\/p>\n<p>(<br \/>\nJ .C. UPADHYAYA, J. )<\/p>\n<p>*Pansala.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 Author: A.L.Dave,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/6\/2003 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 - 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\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T04:24:42+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T04:24:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1478,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T04:24:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 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:\/\/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":"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 - 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\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T04:24:42+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T04:24:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008"},"wordCount":1478,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008","name":"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T04:24:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshbhai vs State on 24 September, 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:\/\/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\/131284","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=131284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}