{"id":135233,"date":"2003-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003"},"modified":"2018-02-23T00:28:27","modified_gmt":"2018-02-22T18:58:27","slug":"ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  178 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nRam Pal\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nState of U.P.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/08\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.\n<\/p>\n
In this appeal, while granting leave, this Court confined <\/p>\n
the scope of the appeal to the consideration of the question of <\/p>\n
sentence only.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant along with seven others, who survived the <\/p>\n
trial out of the eleven persons originally tried, were convicted <\/p>\n
for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 436 and 440 <\/p>\n
all read with Section 149 IPC. The trial court imposed varying <\/p>\n
sentences on them, but in regard to appellant and one other <\/p>\n
person, awarded the sentence of death and referred the said <\/p>\n
sentence to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, <\/p>\n
Lucknow Bench for confirmation. The High Court by the <\/p>\n
impugned judgment has accepted the reference and confirmed <\/p>\n
the death sentence awarded to the appellant but taking into <\/p>\n
consideration the age of the other accused who was also <\/p>\n
sentenced to death converted his sentence from death to life <\/p>\n
imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant questions the <\/p>\n
sentence of death awarded to him on various grounds.<\/p>\n
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing <\/p>\n
for the appellant submitted that the crime of which the appellant <\/p>\n
is charged with cannot be termed as a rarest of the rare cases <\/p>\n
calling for extreme penalty of death even though 21 persons had <\/p>\n
lost their lives due to the acts of the appellant and other accused <\/p>\n
persons. He submitted that there was sufficient provocation <\/p>\n
from the side of the victims which lead to the incident on the <\/p>\n
fateful day because the victims party was earlier responsible for <\/p>\n
the double murder of appellant’s close relatives in regard to <\/p>\n
which the members of the said party were being prosecuted in a <\/p>\n
sessions trial. Inspite of the said proceedings, on the day of the <\/p>\n
incident another relative of the appellant by name Bhagwati <\/p>\n
was found murdered which the appellant and his family <\/p>\n
members had reasons to believe was due to the act of the family <\/p>\n
of the victims. These facts according to the learned counsel was <\/p>\n
the provocation for the murders for which the appellant is being <\/p>\n
punished. Hence the facts of the case in hand did not call for the <\/p>\n
extreme penalty of death. He also submitted that the appellant <\/p>\n
was not the leader of the group of accused which caused the <\/p>\n
death of so many victims nor he had exhorted others either to <\/p>\n
kill or to set fire to the houses. His act was at the most on par <\/p>\n
with the other accused who have been awarded lesser sentence. <\/p>\n
He also submitted that even according to the prosecution case, <\/p>\n
there was considerable doubt as to the role played by the <\/p>\n
appellant in the incident in question, hence, he has been roped <\/p>\n
in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. His further submission was <\/p>\n
that the incident in question had taken place nearly 17 years ago <\/p>\n
and eversince then the appellant has been in jail, therefore the <\/p>\n
appellant should be given an opportunity of redeeming himself.<\/p>\n
Shri Ravi Malhotra learned counsel appearing for the <\/p>\n
State opposed the reduction of the sentence on the ground that <\/p>\n
both the courts below have considered all aspects of the case <\/p>\n
including the question of quantum of punishment and having <\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that the incident in question which <\/p>\n
caused the death of 21 innocent victims was a rarest of the rate <\/p>\n
cases, considered the death penalty as the appropriate sentence <\/p>\n
in regard to this accused, therefore, this is a case in which no <\/p>\n
interference in the sentence awarded by the courts below is <\/p>\n
called for.\n<\/p>\n
We have carefully considered the argument addressed on <\/p>\n
behalf of the parties. It is true the incident in question has pre-<\/p>\n
maturely terminated the life of 21 people but then number of <\/p>\n
deaths cannot be the sole criterion for awarding the maximum <\/p>\n
punishment of death. While in a given case death penalty may <\/p>\n
be the appropriate sentence even for a single murder, it would <\/p>\n
not necessarily mean that in every case of multiple murders <\/p>\n
death penalty has to be the normal punishment.  Guidelines to <\/p>\n
be borne in mind while awarding death sentences have been <\/p>\n
considered and laid down by this Court in a number of cases <\/p>\n
but for the purpose of deciding this appeal it would suffice if <\/p>\n
we refer to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the <\/p>\n
case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980 2 SCC 684). In <\/p>\n
the said case this Court after considering the constitutional <\/p>\n
validity of the provisions which empowers the court to award <\/p>\n
death sentence laid down the following broad guidelines to be <\/p>\n
borne in mind by the courts while considering the question of <\/p>\n
awarding a sentence in cases involving murder : <\/p>\n
“One thing however stands clear that for <\/p>\n
making the choice of punishment or for <\/p>\n
ascertaining the existence or absence of “special <\/p>\n
reasons” in that context, the court must pay due <\/p>\n
regard both to the crime and the criminal. What is <\/p>\n
the relative weight to be given to the aggravating <\/p>\n
and mitigating factors, depends on the facts and <\/p>\n
circumstances of the particular case. More often <\/p>\n
than not, these two aspects are so intertwined that <\/p>\n
it is difficult to give a separate treatment to each of <\/p>\n
them. This is so because ‘style is the man’. In <\/p>\n
many cases, the extremely cruel or beastly manner <\/p>\n
of the commission of murder is itself a <\/p>\n
demonstrated index of the depraved character of <\/p>\n
the perpetrator. That is why, it is not desirable to <\/p>\n
consider the circumstances of the crime and the <\/p>\n
circumstances of the criminal in two separate <\/p>\n
watertight compartments\u2026\u2026..\n<\/p>\n
As to the aggravating circumstances, pre-<\/p>\n
planned, calculated cold-blooded murder has <\/p>\n
always been regarded as one of an aggravated <\/p>\n
kind; so also a murder “diabolically conceived and <\/p>\n
cruelly executed” and the test of Ediga Anamma : <\/p>\n
“The weapons used and the manner of their use, <\/p>\n
the horrendous features of the crime and hapless, <\/p>\n
helpless state of the victim”.\n<\/p>\n
In the said judgment this Court also laid down <\/p>\n
circumstances which could be considered as aggravating <\/p>\n
circumstances. These circumstances are as follows :-<\/p>\n
(a)\tif the murder has been committed after <\/p>\n
previous planning and involves extreme <\/p>\n
brutality; or<\/p>\n
(b)\tif the murder involves exceptional depravity; or<\/p>\n
(c)\tif the murder is of a member of any of the <\/p>\n
armed forces of the Union or of a member of <\/p>\n
any police force or of any public servant and <\/p>\n
was committed \u2013<\/p>\n
(i)\twhile such member or public servant <\/p>\n
was on duty; or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tin consequence of anything done or <\/p>\n
attempted to be done by such member or <\/p>\n
public servant in the lawful discharge of <\/p>\n
his duty as such member or public <\/p>\n
servant whether at the time of murder he <\/p>\n
was such member or public servant, as <\/p>\n
the case may be, or had ceased to be <\/p>\n
such member or public servant; or<\/p>\n
(d)\tif the murder is of a person who had acted in <\/p>\n
the lawful discharge of his duty under Section <\/p>\n
43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, <\/p>\n
or who had rendered assistance to a magistrate <\/p>\n
or a police officer demanding his aid or <\/p>\n
requiring his assistance under Section 37 and <\/p>\n
Section 129 of the said Code.”\n<\/p>\n
Similarly it also considered the following circumstances <\/p>\n
as mitigating circumstances :-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThat the offence was committed under the <\/p>\n
influence of extreme mental or emotional <\/p>\n
disturbance.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe age of the accused. If the accused is young <\/p>\n
or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe probability that the accused would not <\/p>\n
commit criminal acts of violence as would <\/p>\n
constitute a continuing threat to society.<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe probability that the accused can be <\/p>\n
reformed and rehabilitated.\n<\/p>\n
  The State shall by evidence prove that the <\/p>\n
accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and <\/p>\n
(4) above.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tThat in the facts and circumstances of the case <\/p>\n
the accused believed that he was morally <\/p>\n
justified in committing the offence.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tThat the accused acted under the duress or <\/p>\n
domination of another person.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\tThat the condition of the accused showed that <\/p>\n
he was mentally defective and that the said <\/p>\n
defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the <\/p>\n
criminality of his conduct.\n<\/p>\n
Bearing in mind the above broad guidelines laid down by <\/p>\n
this Court in the case of Bachan Singh (supra), if we consider <\/p>\n
the facts of the case we notice the fact that the appellant was a <\/p>\n
party to an incident in which 21 people including young <\/p>\n
children were murdered by gun shot injuries or by burning them <\/p>\n
in latched houses itself could be considered as aggravating <\/p>\n
circumstances to consider awarding of death sentence. <\/p>\n
According to the judgment in Bachan Singh’s case (supra), then <\/p>\n
we will have to weigh the same with any mitigating <\/p>\n
circumstances that may be available on the facts of this case. <\/p>\n
While doing the said exercise of searching for mitigating <\/p>\n
circumstances in the present case, we find the incident in <\/p>\n
question was sequel to the murder of Bhagwati a close relative <\/p>\n
of the appellant and other principal accused, which was <\/p>\n
suspected to have been committed by the members of the <\/p>\n
victims family. Prior to that the victims family was accused of <\/p>\n
having committed the murder of 2 of the close relatives of the <\/p>\n
appellant’s family for which some of the members of the <\/p>\n
victims family were being prosecuted. On facts and <\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, we think this circumstance can be <\/p>\n
treated as a circumstance which amounts to a provocation from <\/p>\n
the victims side. We also notice that the role played by the <\/p>\n
appellant is somewhat similar to the role played by the other <\/p>\n
accused persons who have been given lesser sentence while the <\/p>\n
appellant has been awarded death sentence that too with the aid <\/p>\n
of Section 149 IPC therefore, a question arises why this <\/p>\n
appellant should not be considered at par with those accused for <\/p>\n
the purpose of awarding the sentence. We also notice from the <\/p>\n
argument of the learned counsel which is supported by material <\/p>\n
on record, that the specific overt act attributed to the appellant <\/p>\n
that he climbed the house of the informant and threatened to <\/p>\n
shoot the victims if they came out of their houses, while the <\/p>\n
other accused latched and set the houses on fire seems to be an <\/p>\n
afterthought not having been told to the investigating officer by <\/p>\n
the witnesses when their statements were recorded by him. We <\/p>\n
also notice that the appellant was not treated by the prosecution <\/p>\n
itself as the leader of the gang but was considered to be one <\/p>\n
amongst other accused who took part in the incident. The fact <\/p>\n
that accused has spent nearly 17 years in custody after the <\/p>\n
incident in question can also be treated as a mitigating <\/p>\n
circumstance while considering the question of sentence.<\/p>\n
The above noted circumstances which we consider as <\/p>\n
mitigating circumstances, in our opinion, outweigh the <\/p>\n
aggravating circumstances as found by the courts below. In the <\/p>\n
said view of the matter, we think it appropriate to allow this <\/p>\n
appeal and in substitution of sentence of death awarded to the <\/p>\n
appellant, we sentence the appellant under Section 302 read <\/p>\n
with Section 149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. The <\/p>\n
said sentence shall run concurrently with the substantive <\/p>\n
sentence imposed by the trial court on other counts.<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed partly.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 178 of 2003 PETITIONER: Ram Pal RESPONDENT: Vs. State of U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/08\/2003 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T SANTOSH […]<\/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-135233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-22T18:58:27+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-22T18:58:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1865,\"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\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-22T18:58:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-22T18:58:27+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-22T18:58:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003"},"wordCount":1865,"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\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003","name":"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-22T18:58:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-pal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-6-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Pal vs State Of U.P on 6 August, 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:\/\/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\/135233","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=135233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}