{"id":134898,"date":"2009-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-17T00:36:04","modified_gmt":"2015-08-16T19:06:04","slug":"kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                          Cr. Appeal(S.J.)No.313 of 2001\n               Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed\n               by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in Sessions Trial\n               No. 616 of 1996.\n                                    -----------\n<\/pre>\n<pre>               Kartik Singh Munda.           ...   ...    ...    ... ...Appellant(s)\n                                    -Versus-\n               The State of Jharkhand. ...         ...    ...    ... ...Respondent(s)\n                                    -----------\n               For the Appellant(s):         M\/s A.K.Mehta &amp; Rupesh Singh, Advocates.\n               For the State:                Ms. Anita Sinha, A.P.P.\n                                    -----------\n               C.A.V. on 05.01.2009                :      Pronounced on     17.02.2009\n                                    -----------\n                                    P R E S EN T\n               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP KUMAR SINHA\n                                    -----------\nD.K.Sinha,J.                  This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under\n<\/pre>\n<p>               Section 324 I.P.C. recorded by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in<br \/>\n               Sessions Trial No. 616 of 1996 whereby the sole appellant Kartik Singh Munda<br \/>\n               was directed to be released on execution of probation bond of Rs. 3,000\/- with two<br \/>\n               sureties of like amount each and to maintain good conduct for a period of one year<br \/>\n               since the date of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>               2.             The prosecution story in short as it stands narrated in the written<br \/>\n               report of the informant P.W. 7 Smt. Devi was that on 21.08.1995 while she was<br \/>\n               returning from the field after serving food to her father at about 8.30 a.m. and no<br \/>\n               sooner did she arrive near her house she found her father coming running behind<br \/>\n               her followed by three accused persons including the appellant, armed with guns<br \/>\n               and she alleged that the appellant Kartik Singh Munda fired shot from his gun upon<br \/>\n               his father but it missed the target and hit the informant. The villagers arrived at the<br \/>\n               scene on the sound of gun fire but all the three culprits escaped by firing shots in<br \/>\n               the air. The motive behind such attack was that the culprits wanted to restrain her<br \/>\n               father from plaughing his own field. On the written report submitted by the<br \/>\n               informant the police instituted Tamar P.S. Case No. 66 of 1995 for the offence<br \/>\n               under Sections 448\/307\/324\/34 I.P.C. and after investigation charge-sheet was<br \/>\n               submitted against all the three accused but showing the appellant absconder. The<br \/>\n               case was committed to the court of sessions and the appellant also joined the Trial<br \/>\n               in the sessions court where all the three accused were put on trial on framing of<br \/>\n               charge under Sections 324\/307 I.P.C. as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>               3.             The Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on<br \/>\n               the ground that the learned Trial Judge failed to take into consideration that the<br \/>\n               injuries sustained by the informant according to the medical evidence was not in<br \/>\n               consonance with the statement of the informant what she projected in her written<br \/>\n               statement. The Doctor P.W. 8 examined the injury on the informant and found a<br \/>\n               small punctured wound at the base of index finger of her right hand. The admitted<br \/>\n               land dispute between the parties was ignored by the Trial Court as they were<br \/>\n               contesting their title over the disputed land. The learned Counsel urged that the<br \/>\n               Trial Court ignored the stand of the defence that the informant&#8217;s party wanted to<br \/>\n               dislodge one Kalicharan Singh Munda from the village Headmanship who was<br \/>\n               none other than the father of the appellant herein. Though the prosecution<br \/>\n               witnesses were consistent that the shots were fired from guns indiscriminately with<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the intention to commit murder of the father of the informant P.W. 2 Bharat Mahto<br \/>\nbut it missed the target not once but twice, thrice and so on at all the occasions.<br \/>\nThe informant P.W. 7 narrated in the manner as if she stood as shield of her father<br \/>\nbut without any shot injury alleged to be caused on her person as stated in the<br \/>\nwritten report. The learned Counsel exhorted that about 40\/50 villagers assembled<br \/>\nat the alleged place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing shots but only<br \/>\ninterested witnesses were produced at the behest of the informant&#8217;s-party and the<br \/>\nindependent witnesses were withheld from the witness box without any<br \/>\nexplanation.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.             Finally, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant was highly<br \/>\nprejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating Officer in this case being<br \/>\ndenied of the opportunity to cross-examine about his objective finding as to<br \/>\nwhether he found any evidence of firing of shots at the place of occurrence or that<br \/>\nhe had referred the informant to the Doctor for the examination of her injury or as<br \/>\nto whether he had received any pillet from the custody of the doctor P.W. 8 and<br \/>\nsent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for test or recovered any fire arms from<br \/>\nthe appellant. The Doctor examined the informant and admitted in his testimony<br \/>\nthat he did find injury on the base of the index finger of her right hand but admitted<br \/>\nhaving not delivered the pillet which he had recovered to the police officer. He fairly<br \/>\nadmitted that the victim was not examined on the requisition of the police. The<br \/>\nCounsel, therefore, drew an inference that the injury report was procured by<br \/>\ninfluencing the P.W. 8 with the desired fictitious injury on the informant alleged to<br \/>\nbe caused by firearm but without corroboration. The learned Counsel pointed out<br \/>\nthat the informant P.W. 7 testified in the Court that she sustained three injuries<br \/>\ncaused by gun fire including on her back and the pillet caused penetrating hole in<br \/>\nher blouse and back but the Doctor did not find any injury on her back nor did she<br \/>\nproduce the said blouse before the police either during investigation in the Court<br \/>\ntherefore the prosecution failed to establish that the injury found at the base of the<br \/>\nindex finger of her right hand was caused by firearms and for want of such<br \/>\nevidence the appellant should not have been convicted for the alleged charge<br \/>\nunder Section 307 I.P.C. against the appellant and two other co-accused. The<br \/>\nprosecution further failed to prove that on the given facts and circumstance offence<br \/>\nunder Section 324 Indian Penal Code was attracted against the appellant but he<br \/>\nwas convicted without appreciating the material required for the offence under<br \/>\nSection 324 I.P.C. on     erroneous consideration and therefore, the appellant is<br \/>\nliable to be acquitted and exempted from executing bond.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.             I find from the impugned judgment that P.W. 1 Bisheshwar Mahto,<br \/>\nP.W. 2 Bharat Mahto, P.W. 3 Munshi Mahto, P.W. 5 Charan Mahto and P.W. 7<br \/>\nSrimati Devi ( injured informant) claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence<br \/>\nwhereas P.W. 4       Lohara Mahto and P.W. 6 Kedar Mahto were the hearsay<br \/>\nwitnesses but closely related to P.W. 2 Bharat Mahto and his daughter P.W. 7 who<br \/>\nwas the informant.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.             P.W. 8 Dr. Mahendra Prasad had examined the informant P.W. 7<br \/>\nSmt. Devi on 21.8.1995 while he was posted as Medical Officer at Additional<br \/>\nPrimary Health Centre, Sarjamdih, Tamar at about 11 a.m. and found the following<br \/>\ninjuries;-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               3<\/span><\/p>\n<pre>               (i)     Punctured wound on base of the right index finger of\n               size 1\/4\"x 1\/8\"x 1\/8\".\n               (ii)    The above injury was caused by gun shot, simple in\n<\/pre>\n<p>               nature within 24 hours of the examination and he proved the<br \/>\n               injury report Ext. 1. He admitted having referred the patient to<br \/>\n               R.M.C.H. In the cross-examination, the Doctor admitted that<br \/>\n               though the pillet was removed by him but he did not preserve it<br \/>\n               at the Primary Health Centre nor it was sent to the police. He<br \/>\n               admitted that the police had not referred the patient\/injured to<br \/>\n               him at the Additional Primary Health Centre and he assessed<br \/>\n               that the pillet might have come from front side or left side or<br \/>\n               right side of the patient but could not have from back side of<br \/>\n               the patient. He further admitted having not mention in the<br \/>\n               injury report that there was any tattoo mark around the injury<br \/>\n               and that he had also not mentioned the age of the patient in the<br \/>\n               report.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.             On careful scrutiny of the prosecution case and its parity with the<br \/>\ninjury report, I find that the injury report (Ext.1) issued by P.W. 8 Dr. Mahendra<br \/>\nPrasad and his testimony were not in consonance with the prosecution case as<br \/>\nnarrated by the informant P.W. 7. It would be relevant to mention that in the written<br \/>\nreport presented first point in time before the Tamar Police, the informant Smt.<br \/>\nDevi had not disclosed that she had sustained any gun shot injury fired by the<br \/>\nappellant or other accused persons. She had not even disclosed that any other<br \/>\nwitness had sustained injury in the incidence of alleged shooting but in her<br \/>\nstatement in course of trial she made substantial development by testifying that the<br \/>\nappellant fired shot aiming at her father but the shot missed the target and stuck to<br \/>\nher causing injuries at three places viz. back, waist and on the base of the index<br \/>\nfinger of her right hand. The Doctor did not find any injury on her back and waist<br \/>\nalleged to be caused by shot from firearm. The fact as produced on the record is of<br \/>\nmuch relevance that the injury found by P.W. 8 Dr. Mahendra Prasad on the base<br \/>\nof the right index finger was of a very small size \u00bc&#8221;x 1\/8&#8243;x 1\/8&#8243; but the witness<br \/>\nneither mention the size of pillet so as to co-relate its lodging at the site of injury<br \/>\nnor cared to send the same to the nearest police. The prosecution further failed to<br \/>\nprove that the manifestation of injury on the index finger was caused          by   an<br \/>\ninstrument which, used as weapon of offence, was likely to cause death, or by<br \/>\nmeans of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive<br \/>\nsubstance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance<br \/>\nwhich was deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into<br \/>\nthe blood so as to attract an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. I am<br \/>\nconscious to observe that the prosecution witnesses were consistent that shots<br \/>\nwere fired upon Bharat Mahto P.W. 2 even from behind P.W. 7 Srimati Devi but<br \/>\naccording to P.W. 8 Dr. Mahendra Prasad shot was fired either from front or left or<br \/>\nright side of Smt. Devi. He did not find any tattoo mark on the injury which is an<br \/>\nessential feature in case of the injury caused by firing shots. Similarly, there was no<br \/>\nevidence on the record in support of the contention that the informant remained as<br \/>\nindoor patient for a few days at Ranchi Institute of Medical Science, Ranchi. I have<br \/>\nreason to observe that a reasonable doubt is created as to the complicity of the<br \/>\nappellant for the alleged charge even under Section 324 I.P.C. in which he was<br \/>\nconvicted by the Trial Court though initially not framed against him. Conviction<br \/>\nunder lesser gravity of offence of an accused is permissible if the charge is framed<br \/>\nin a graver offence such as under Section 307 I.P.C. but under given situation and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                              4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>major contradiction in the statements of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 referred to<br \/>\nhereinabove, I am constrained to rely upon the testimony of other witnesses such<br \/>\nas P.W. 1 Bisheshwar Mahto, P.W. 2 Bharat Mahto, P.W. 3 Munshi Mahto, P.W. 5<br \/>\nCharan Mahto. I further find and observe that the materials produced and adduced<br \/>\non the record on behalf of the prosecution were not sufficient to hold the appellant<br \/>\nguilty for the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. which has been recorded by the Trial<br \/>\nCourt without appreciating the nature and quality of the evidence. The conviction of<br \/>\nthe appellant Kartik Singh Munda under Section 324 I.P.C. under the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances, therefore, cannot sustain. I find substance in the argument<br \/>\nadvanced on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove the charge<br \/>\nunder Section 324 I.P.C. against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable<br \/>\ndoubts accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 I.P.C. and the<br \/>\norder passed by the A.J.C.-II, Ranchi calling upon the appellant to execute bond in<br \/>\nSessions Trial No. 616\/1996 arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 66 of 1995 is set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.            This petition is allowed and the appellant Kartik Singh Munda is<br \/>\ndischarged and exempted from executing any bond in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                           [D.K.Sinha,J.]<br \/>\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\nDated the 17.02.2009<br \/>\nP.K.S.\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 Cr. Appeal(S.J.)No.313 of 2001 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 616 of 1996. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Kartik Singh Munda. &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230;Appellant(s) -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 - 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\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-16T19:06:04+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\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T19:06:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1935,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T19:06:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 - 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\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-16T19:06:04+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\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T19:06:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009"},"wordCount":1935,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009","name":"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T19:06:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartik-singh-munda-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kartik Singh Munda vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134898","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=134898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}