{"id":136435,"date":"2011-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011"},"modified":"2014-01-18T11:30:05","modified_gmt":"2014-01-18T06:00:05","slug":"subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n                                                                                         AFR\n                       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                         PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                                    DIVISION BENCH\n                          Criminal Revision No.820\/1995\n\n\n                          R.K. Agrawal, son of Shri Gaya\n                          Prasad Agrawal, Serviceman, r\/o\n                          Birsinghpur,      Police     Station,\n                          Sakhaganj, district Satna, M.P.\n\n                                             versus\n\n                          1.    State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n                          2. Subhash, s\/o Shri Baddhelal\n                          Agrawal, aged 33 years, r\/o\n                          Oujara, Police Station and Tahsil,\n                          Amarpatan, district Satna (M.P.).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the petitioner:              Shri S.K. Dwivedi, advocate.\nFor the Resp.\/State:             Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\nFor the Resp.No.2:               Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocate.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                          Criminal Revision No.821\/1995\n\n                          R.K. Agrawal, son of Shri Gaya\n                          Agrawal,      Serviceman,         r\/o\n                          Birsinghpur,      Police     Station,\n                          Sakhaganj, district Satna, M.P.\n\n                                             versus\n\n                          1.    The State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n                          2. Smt. Meena, wife of Shri\n                          Foolchand Agrawal, aged 32 years.\n\n                          3. Ramdhar, s\/o Shri Buddhelal\n                          Agrawal, aged 48 years.\n\n                          4. Premchandra,       s\/o     Shri\n                          Buddhelal Agrawal, aged 28 years.\n\n                          5. Smt. Droupadi, wife of Shri\n                          Ramadhar Agrawal, aged 46 years.\n\n                          All residents of village Ovara, Police\n                          Station and Tahsil Amarpatan,\n                          district Satna (M.P.).\n                                                2\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the petitioner:              Shri S.K. Dwivedi, advocate.\nFor the Resp.\/State:             Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\nFor the Resp.No.2 to 5: Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocate.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                          Criminal Appeal No.1188\/1995\n\n                           Subhash son of Buddhelal Agrawal,\n                           M.Sc. Lecturer in the Government\n                           Higher Secondary School, Maihar,\n                           resident of Obera Police Station,\n                           Amarpatan,      Tahsil   Amarpatan,\n                           district Satna, at present in Maihar\n                           Jail.\n\n                                             versus\n\n                          The State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the appellant:               Shri S.C.Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt\n                                 and Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocates.\nFor the Resp.\/State:             Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\nFor the Complainant:             Shri S.K. Dwivedi, Advocate.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA\n                HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K. KAUSHAL\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing:         25\/01\/2011\nDate of Judgment: 02\/02\/2011\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Per: Rakesh Saksena, J<\/p>\n
        Since the aforesaid revisions and the appeal arise out of common<\/p>\n
judgment, this judgment shall govern the disposal of all the above revisions<\/p>\n
and appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Appellant Subhash has filed Criminal Appeal No.1188\/1995 against the<\/p>\n
judgment dated 26.8.1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar,<\/p>\n
district Satna, in Sessions Trial No.71\/1995, convicting him under Sections<\/p>\n
304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. No
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 498-A of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Complainant R.K. Ragrawal has filed Criminal Revision No.821\/1995<\/p>\n
against the same impugned judgment whereby accused Smt. Meena,<\/p>\n
Ramadhar, Premchandra and Smt. Droupadi have been acquitted. He has also<\/p>\n
filed Criminal Revision No.820\/1995 against accused\/respondent Subhash for<\/p>\n
enhancement of his sentence.\n<\/p>\n
4.    In brief, the prosecution case is that Meena, the deceased, was married<\/p>\n
to accused\/appellant Subhash in the year 1990. After marriage she was<\/p>\n
residing with her husband and in-laws in village Birsinghpur. Relations between<\/p>\n
Meena on one side and the accused persons on the other side were not<\/p>\n
cordial. On 19.4.1995, at about 6-6.30 in the morning, in the house of her<\/p>\n
husband, Meena got burnt and died. It is said that though the door latch of<\/p>\n
the room, in which her dead body was found, was bolted from inside. Accused<\/p>\n
Ramadhar, elder brother of Subhash, lodged the report about the incident in<\/p>\n
police station at about 7.25 a.m. Police registered Murg and proceeded for<\/p>\n
enquiry. Family members of the deceased were informed. Dead body of<\/p>\n
deceased was then sent for postmortem examination to Community Health<\/p>\n
Centre, Amarpatan, where Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-8) conducted autopsy and<\/p>\n
found that deceased had died due to burn injuries. The postmortem<\/p>\n
examination report is Ex.P\/5.\n<\/p>\n
5.    On 21.4.1995, Jeevanlal Agrawal, the maternal grand father of the<\/p>\n
deceased, submitted a written report (Ex.P\/4) to Station Officer of Police<\/p>\n
Station, Amarpatan, alleging that after marriage when deceased had come<\/p>\n
back to her parents’ house, she had disclosed to her parents and other family<\/p>\n
members that her husband and other accused persons were angry because of<\/p>\n
not giving sufficient dowry in the marriage and they used to extend taunts to
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
her about that. She had also disclosed that her husband used to say that he<\/p>\n
did not marry her out of his own wish, he had married under the influence of<\/p>\n
his elder brother. Deceased was made to understand that everything would be<\/p>\n
alright with the passage of time, but her husband used to manhandle and<\/p>\n
insult her. When she conceived, he asked her to go to her uncle’s house and<\/p>\n
get her pregnancy aborted. She was also intimidated for not doing so.<\/p>\n
However, she delivered a female child. Even thereafter, the relations between<\/p>\n
them could not be improved. On 13.3.1995, when her brother Sanjay went to<\/p>\n
her house to invite her for some family function, she complained to him about<\/p>\n
her harassment. According to Jeevanlal, on 19.4.1995, at about 8.30 a.m., a<\/p>\n
police constable informed him that her grand daughter had died. All the family<\/p>\n
members went to the house of accused persons and saw that deceased was<\/p>\n
burnt to death by them.      According to him, police did not record their<\/p>\n
statements. Therefore, the written report was submitted.<\/p>\n
6.    After investigation, police filed charge sheet against five accused<\/p>\n
persons.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Trial Court framed charges against accused persons u\/s 304B and 498A<\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
8.    During trial, the defence of the accused persons was that accused<\/p>\n
Subhash was posted as Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School,<\/p>\n
Maihar. Deceased was residing at Amarpatan in joint family house. She insisted<\/p>\n
Subhash to keep her also at Maihar, but since she was suffering with disease<\/p>\n
of hiccups, he did not yield to her demand. She did not want to live in joint<\/p>\n
family. She was frustrated because her cousin Sanjay, though invited them in<\/p>\n
some function, but he did not took her with him. In the morning, she went to<\/p>\n
take bath in their other house, which was situated in front of a residential<\/p>\n
house. When she did not return, other persons went there and found her lying
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
burnt in the room, which was bolted from inside. She was already dead. Family<\/p>\n
members of deceased came and attended the inquest and the funeral, they did<\/p>\n
not make any complaint to anybody, but, subsequently, Jeevanlal lodged<\/p>\n
report with the police making false allegation of demand of dowry. Parents of<\/p>\n
deceased also took away his daughter.\n<\/p>\n
9.    In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons,<\/p>\n
prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Accused also examined 3 witnesses to<\/p>\n
substantiate their defence.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of<\/p>\n
the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted accused Ramadhar, Premchandra,<\/p>\n
Smt. Droupadi and Smt. Meena of all the charges, however, finding appellant<\/p>\n
Subhash, the husband of deceased, guilty of the offence under Section 304B<\/p>\n
and 498A of the Indian Penal Code convicted and sentenced him, as<\/p>\n
mentioned above. Appellant Subhash has challenged the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
of his conviction in his appeal, whereas complainant has challenged the<\/p>\n
acquittal of other accused persons in revision.\n<\/p>\n
11.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
12.   It is no longer disputed that deceased Anupam @ Meena died of burn<\/p>\n
injuries. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-8) that<\/p>\n
the dead body of deceased Meena was brought to Community Health Centre,<\/p>\n
Amarpatan, where he had conducted the postmortem examination of her body<\/p>\n
with a team of doctors. According to him, smell of kerosene was present on<\/p>\n
the body. Deep burns were present over scalp, hair were singed, face was<\/p>\n
dark, it was charred and deformed, tung was protruding out. Whole of the<\/p>\n
chest including breast and upper 2\/3rd of abdomen was deeply burnt, charred<\/p>\n
and black. Back of trunk was burnt deeply up to hips and continued over the
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
back of thighs. Arms were also burnt. The areas of umbilical abdomen and<\/p>\n
perineum interiorly were escaped from burns. Burns were ante-mortem in<\/p>\n
nature. No other mark of injury was found on the body. In the opinion of<\/p>\n
doctors, cause of death was shock due to extensive ante-mortem burns. Her<\/p>\n
postmortem report (Ex.P\/5) written and signed by Dr. P.K. Sharma, R.K. Jain<\/p>\n
and A.K. Awadhiya is placed on record. Investigating Officer K. Mahendra<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-11) deposed that on receiving information about the death of<\/p>\n
deceased, he had recorded Murg report (Ex.P\/9) and conducted inquest<\/p>\n
proceedings. He had recorded inquest memo (Ex.P\/1) and sent the dead body<\/p>\n
for postmortem examination. It was thus clearly evident that deceased Meena<\/p>\n
died of burn injuries.\n<\/p>\n
13.    From the evidence of Jeevanlal (PW-3), Kamla Devi (PW-5), Sanjay<\/p>\n
Agrawal (PW-6), Raj Kumar Agrawal, father of deceased (PW-7) and Janak<\/p>\n
Dulari, mother of deceased (PW-15), it has been clearly established that<\/p>\n
deceased was married to appellant Subhash on 26.6.1990. This fact was not<\/p>\n
disputed by the appellant. Thus, it stood established that the death of<\/p>\n
deceased was caused by burns otherwise than under normal circumstances<\/p>\n
within seven years of her marriage.\n<\/p>\n
14.    Now the question before this Court is whether soon before her death<\/p>\n
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons for, or in<\/p>\n
connection with, any demand of dowry.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the trial<\/p>\n
Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of family<\/p>\n
members and relatives of deceased. Their evidence was general and vague in<\/p>\n
nature. Trial Court itself found that their evidence in respect of demand of<\/p>\n
VCR, TV and ten Tolas of gold was not reliable. It failed to consider that by the<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence it was not established that deceased was subjected to
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon<\/p>\n
before her death. The death of deceased took place after about four and half<\/p>\n
years of her marriage. She had also delivered a female child. Accused persons<\/p>\n
were falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
justified and supported the conviction of the appellant.<\/p>\n
16.   Jeevanlal (PW-3), grand father of deceased, deposed that deceased was<\/p>\n
married to Subhash on 26th June 1990. Other accused persons in the case were<\/p>\n
elder brothers of Subhash and their wives. They all lived jointly in Amarpatan.<\/p>\n
After marriage, the behaviour of accused persons with deceased was not<\/p>\n
proper. Deceased used to tell that they passed comments and taunted her that<\/p>\n
her father had given insufficient dowry. Subhash used to maltreat her. She<\/p>\n
disclosed these matters to him last time about 4-5 months before her death.<\/p>\n
Jeevanlal further deposed that cash, gold and silver etc. to be given in dowry<\/p>\n
was negotiated before marriage and that was given. All these articles were<\/p>\n
given by them out of their own wish. He, however, clarified that all the talks<\/p>\n
and negotiations about dowry were done by accused Ramadhar, elder brother<\/p>\n
of Subash. After about two years of marriage, deceased had delivered a female<\/p>\n
child. Subhash had asked deceased to get the pregnancy aborted, but since<\/p>\n
the deceased had given birth to a child, Subhash got annoyed. He, however,<\/p>\n
admitted that he did not disclose this fact in the written report (Ex.P\/4)<\/p>\n
submitted by him to police and also in his police statement (Ex.D\/1). Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submitted that since this witness admitted that the<\/p>\n
deceased had complained him about the taunting made by accused persons<\/p>\n
only 2-3 times and, at the last, about six months before her death, it cannot be<\/p>\n
held that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry<\/p>\n
soon before her death. Before expressing our opinion in this regard, it is also<\/p>\n
necessary to examine the evidence of other witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
17.   Kishore Kumar (PW-4), brother of deceased, stated that about 5 months<\/p>\n
before her death deceased had come to his house and told to family members<\/p>\n
that her in-laws used to make demand of dowry and maltreat her. She had<\/p>\n
made this complaint against Ramadhar, Premchandra, Meena, Droupadi and<\/p>\n
her husband Subhash. However, in para-8 of his statement he did not disclose<\/p>\n
this fact to anybody and also did not mention these facts in his statement<\/p>\n
before the police. According to him, deceased had complained about the said<\/p>\n
misbehaviour and demand after about 15 days of marriage, after about one<\/p>\n
years thereafter and about five months before her death.       Kishore Kumar<\/p>\n
further deposed that his cousin Sanjay Agrawal had gone to the house of<\/p>\n
deceased to invite her and her in-laws, but they did not send her and made<\/p>\n
demand of dowry saying that if their demand would not be not fulfilled, they<\/p>\n
would not be able to see the face of deceased. Though Sanjay Agrawal (PW-6)<\/p>\n
before the court reiterated the same things, but these facts were found<\/p>\n
missing in his police statement (Ex.D\/32).   Kishore Kumar (PW-4) admitted<\/p>\n
that the fact of demand of ten Tolas of gold, colour TV and VCR by the<\/p>\n
accused persons was not disclosed by him to police. Kamla Devi (PW-5) stated<\/p>\n
that Meena used to go to her parents’ house every 2-3 months. She also used<\/p>\n
to stay at her house. She used to tell her that her in-laws used to harass her.<\/p>\n
They used to taunt her that nothing was given in dowry. Even TV, VCR and ten<\/p>\n
Tolas of gold was not given. Subhash used to beat her. According to her,<\/p>\n
when deceased became pregnant, her husband Subhash asked her to get the<\/p>\n
pregnancy terminated because he did not want child. Kamla Devi (PW-5)<\/p>\n
admitted that everything whatever was to be given in dowry was already given<\/p>\n
and nothing remained to be given in dowry. Kamla Devi also disclosed that<\/p>\n
husband of deceased was lecturer in Maihar and used to up and down daily.<\/p>\n
Meena wanted to live with him at Maihar, but Subhash did not agree for that.
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
When Meena asked him to live at Obra, Subhash did not agree for it too and<\/p>\n
insisted her to live in joint family. Similar types of statements were given by<\/p>\n
Sanjay Agrawal (PW-6), cousin, Naryan Prasad (PW-12), uncle, Dr. Aditya<\/p>\n
Vansh Mishra (PW-13) and Anita Mishra (PW-14), neighbours of deceased’s<\/p>\n
family.\n<\/p>\n
18.       Rajkumar Agrawal (PW-7), father of deceased, deposed that whenever<\/p>\n
his daughter came to his house, she told that she was married in a wrong<\/p>\n
family. Their demand of dowry remained ever existing and they used to harass<\/p>\n
her. Her husband used to abuse and beat her. Other in-laws used to make<\/p>\n
demand of TV, VCR and ten Tolas of gold. Her husband wanted her pregnancy<\/p>\n
terminated because he did not want a child. However, when confronted with<\/p>\n
his police statement (Ex.D\/33), he could not explain as to why these facts were<\/p>\n
not mentioned by him there. His statement was recorded twice. He admitted<\/p>\n
that he did not disclose all the above facts in his police statement also, which<\/p>\n
was recorded on 21.4.1994. He also admitted that Meena used to write letters<\/p>\n
to him regarding his agony in her nuptial home, but he did not keep any letter<\/p>\n
safe. Similarly, deceased’s mother Janak Dulari (PW-15) admitted that in her<\/p>\n
police statement (Ex.D\/2) she did not disclose that accused persons demanded<\/p>\n
gold, VCR and TV. She also did not disclose that Subhash used to beat her and<\/p>\n
others harassed her. According to her, she had not given the statement (Ex.D\/<\/p>\n
2) to police. Police had obtained her signatures on the blank paper. Janak<\/p>\n
Dulari (PW-15) stated that she had met the deceased last time about 5-6<\/p>\n
months before her death. She also admitted that she had written letter<\/p>\n
(Ex.D\/35) on 1.2.1995 to deceased.         Learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
referring to said letter and also to letters (Ex.D\/5 to D\/28), proved by Sanjay<\/p>\n
Agrawal (PW-6), written by Raj Kumar, father of deceased, and post cards<\/p>\n
(Ex.D\/29, D\/30 and Ex.D\/31) written by uncle of deceased Mukut Bihari to the
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
in-laws of deceased, submitted that in none of these letters any resentment or<\/p>\n
complaint was expressed by parents and the uncle of deceased about the<\/p>\n
harassment or any cruelty, if meted out to deceased by them.<\/p>\n
19.   Anita Mishra (PW-15), a neighbour of father of deceased, though<\/p>\n
deposed that deceased told to her that her husband and the in-laws used to<\/p>\n
harass and subject her to cruelty, but these facts were also found missing in<\/p>\n
her police statement (Ex.D\/37).     She, however, deposed that husband of<\/p>\n
deceased insisted her for miscarriage of pregnancy. She admitted that she had<\/p>\n
talked to deceased only about 5-6 months before her death.<\/p>\n
20.   After scanning and critically scrutinizing the evidence of aforesaid<\/p>\n
witnesses, we find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not enough<\/p>\n
to compel us to hold that appellant Subhash had made demand of gold, VCR,<\/p>\n
TV or any other thing in dowry. Whatever was given in dowry by the family<\/p>\n
members of the deceased was given voluntarily at the time of marriage, which<\/p>\n
took place in the year 1990. The evidence in respect of dowry was discrepant<\/p>\n
and contradictory besides the improvements in the evidence of almost all the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses. We find that on the basis of vague and general kind of<\/p>\n
evidence no fact can be held proved. Trial Court itself in para-30 and 31 of the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment held, and, in our opinion rightly, that the evidence of<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses regarding demand of TV, VCR and ten Tolas of gold in<\/p>\n
dowry was not reliable. It is true that the trial court held that from the<\/p>\n
evidence of Jeevanlal (PW-3) it was established that in-laws of deceased<\/p>\n
taunted her as to what was given by her parents in dowry, but, in our opinion,<\/p>\n
such comments and taunts cannot be deemed to be the demand of dowry or<\/p>\n
subjection of deceased to cruelty for not meeting the demand of dowry.<\/p>\n
21.   It is also important to note that marriage of the deceased with appellant<\/p>\n
Subhash took place in the year 1990 and the unnatural death of deceased by
\n                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
burning took place in the year 1995 i.e. around four and half years of the<\/p>\n
marriage. In this span of time, number of letters were written by parents and<\/p>\n
other relatives of deceased to her and her in-laws, but not even a single time<\/p>\n
any resentment or anguish was expressed about the alleged demand of dowry<\/p>\n
made by or cruelty done by the accused persons to deceased. It is also<\/p>\n
noteworthy that Rajkumar (PW-7), father of deceased did not produce any<\/p>\n
letter written by deceased to him.       There appeared not much difference<\/p>\n
between the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses against all the<\/p>\n
accused persons including appellant Subhash, but trial Court, in our opinion,<\/p>\n
without any valid reason assumed that except appellant there was no evidence<\/p>\n
against others that they taunted or harassed the deceased contributing to her<\/p>\n
suicide.\n<\/p>\n
22.    From the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that it was not<\/p>\n
established beyond doubt that appellant Subhash subjected the deceased to<\/p>\n
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.<\/p>\n
23.    For bringing home the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code and for raising the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act,<\/p>\n
the proof of following essentials is necessary:-\n<\/p>\n
           (1) The question before the court must be whether the
\n           accused committed dowry death of a woman.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
\n           her husband or relatives.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
\n           with, any demand for dowry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If any of the constituent ingredient is not established or is found missing, the<\/p>\n
accused cannot be convicted for the charge under Section 304B of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
24.   In Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab-AIR<\/a> 2006 SC 680, the Apex<\/p>\n
Court held :\n<\/p>\n
         “19. ……………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ……………………………………………
\n         It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to
\n         the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if
\n         Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have
\n         happened ‘soon before her death’. The said phrase, no
\n         doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period
\n         either immediately before her death or within a few days
\n         or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her
\n         death is the pivot indicated by the expression. The
\n         legislative object in providing such a radius of time by
\n         employing the words ‘soon before her death’ is to
\n         emphasis the idea that her death should, in all
\n         probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or
\n         harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptile
\n         nexus between her death and the dowry related
\n         harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval
\n         elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or
\n         cruelty and her death is vide the Court would be in a
\n         position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or
\n         cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her
\n         death. It is hence for the Court to decide on the facts and
\n         circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in
\n         that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the
\n         concept ‘soon before her death’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         20. Yet again in Hiralal and others v. State (Govt. of NCT)
\n         Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80), this Court observed that ‘The
\n         expression ‘soon before her death’ used in the substantive
\n         Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is
\n         present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period
\n         has been indicated and the expression ‘soon before’ is not
\n         defined. A reference to the expression ‘soon before’ used
\n         in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is
\n         relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a
\n         man who is in the possession of goods<\/p>\n
         “soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the
\n         goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account
\n         for their possession”. The determination of the period
\n         which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be
\n         determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and
\n         circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate
\n         that the expression “soon before” would normally imply
\n         that the interval should not be much between the cruelty
\n         or harassment concerned and the death in question. There
\n         must be existence of a proximate and live link between
\n         the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
\n         death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
\n         remote in time and has become stale enough not to
\n                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
         disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it
\n         would be of no consequence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
25.   On examining the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light<\/p>\n
of the above legal proposition, we find that it was not established that<\/p>\n
deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with,<\/p>\n
demand of dowry. Apart from it, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it<\/p>\n
appears that they heard about the harassment or cruelty at the hands of<\/p>\n
accused persons to deceased only about 5-6 months before the death of<\/p>\n
deceased. There was no specific evidence that deceased was subjected to<\/p>\n
harassment by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry immediately<\/p>\n
or soon before her death. In these circumstance, in our opinion, the<\/p>\n
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised and the<\/p>\n
appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
26.   It is true that the evidence for the proof of charge under Section 304B<\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code has been found insufficient, but, from the same set of<\/p>\n
evidence, it stands established that appellant Subhash subjected deceased to<\/p>\n
cruelty by manhandling and beating her. It also stands established that he<\/p>\n
forced deceased for abortion of her pregnancy and ill treated her for her not<\/p>\n
yielding to his demand. According to Narayan Prasad (PW-12), it was only the<\/p>\n
appellant who compelled her for abortion. Dr. Aditya Mishra (PW-13) deposed<\/p>\n
that his wife Anita had told to him that deceased had informed her that<\/p>\n
appellant threatened her that if she would not terminate her pregnancy, he<\/p>\n
would do away with her. This fact was corroborated by the evidence of Anita<\/p>\n
Mishra (PW-14) also, who deposed that she told to her husband about the<\/p>\n
above facts, which were disclosed to her by the deceased.<\/p>\n
27.   Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
           “498A.      Husband or relative of husband of a
\n           woman subjecting her to cruelty.-whoever, being the
\n           husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
\n           subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punishable with
\n           imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
\n           and shall also be liable to fine.”\n<\/p>\n
A bare perusal of explanation (a) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive<\/p>\n
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or<\/p>\n
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to<\/p>\n
cruelty. In view of the facts and circumstances established in the case against<\/p>\n
the appellant, we find that appellant was liable to be convicted under Section<\/p>\n
498A of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
28.     In view of the above discussion, conviction and sentence of appellant<\/p>\n
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. He is acquitted of<\/p>\n
that charge, instead he is convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
29.     As far as the question of sentence of appellant is concerned, Shri<\/p>\n
S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for R.K. Agrawal, the petitioner of Criminal<\/p>\n
Revision No.820\/1995 and Criminal Revision No.821\/1995, submitted that<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused Subhash is son in-law of Raj Kumar Agrawal. He has one<\/p>\n
daughter, whose future is fully dependent on him. Though initially he had filed<\/p>\n
Criminal Revision No.820\/1995 for enhancement of sentence of accused<\/p>\n
Subhash, but due to understanding developed between the two families, he<\/p>\n
decided to withdraw the said revisions. Shri Dwivedi submitted that he had<\/p>\n
also moved applications for withdrawal of both the revisions, but such<\/p>\n
permission was not granted. However, in the interest of daughter of accused<\/p>\n
Subhash, who has attained the age of about 16 years now, he again seeks to<\/p>\n
withdraw the aforesaid revisions. The complainant and appellant have again
\n                                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
         filed a joint application indicating that they have compounded the matter.<\/p>\n
         Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a lecturer in<\/p>\n
         Government Higher Secondary School. He has already suffered incarceration<\/p>\n
         for a period of about five and half months. If he is sent back to jail again, it<\/p>\n
         would adversely affect his career as well as future of his daughter.<\/p>\n
         30.    We find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
         the appellant.   Accordingly, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
         appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period of sentence already<\/p>\n
         undergone by him. However, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3000\/-. In case<\/p>\n
         of default in payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period<\/p>\n
         of three months. Fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within two months.<\/p>\n
         31.    Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1188\/1995) partly allowed.<\/p>\n
         32.    In view of the submissions made by Shri S.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel<\/p>\n
         for the petitioner Rajkumar Agrawal, Criminal Revision No.820\/1995 and<\/p>\n
         Criminal Revision No.821\/1995 are dismissed as withdrawn.<\/p>\n
         33.    A copy of this judgment be kept in the record of aforesaid criminal<\/p>\n
         revisions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (RAKESH SAKSENA)                                             (T.K. KAUSHAL)\n              JUDGE                                                        JUDGE\n\nShukla\n                                     16<\/span>\n\n                 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                   PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                          DIVISION BENCH\n\n                   Criminal Revision No.820\/1995\n\n                              R.K. Agrawal\n                                  versus\n                    The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr\n\n\n\n                   Criminal Revision No.821\/1995\n\n                              R.K. Agrawal\n                                 versus\n                   The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors\n\n\n\n                   Criminal Appeal No.1188\/1995\n\n                                Subhash\n                                 versus\n                      The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n\n\n                                          For consideration\n\n\n                                          (Rakesh Saksena)\n                                                 JUDGE\n                                               __\/02\/2011\n\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice T.K. Kaushal\n\n\n          JUDGE\n        __\/02\/2011\n\n\n                                          POST FOR      \/02\/2011\n\n\n                                             (Rakesh Saksena)\n                                                  Judge\n                                               ___\/02\/2011\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 1 AFR HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Revision No.820\/1995 R.K. Agrawal, son of Shri Gaya Prasad Agrawal, Serviceman, r\/o Birsinghpur, Police Station, Sakhaganj, district Satna, M.P. versus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Subhash, […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 - 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\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-18T06:00:05+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-18T06:00:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4265,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-18T06:00:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 - 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\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-18T06:00:05+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-18T06:00:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011"},"wordCount":4265,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011","name":"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-18T06:00:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhash vs The State Of M.P on 2 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/136435","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=136435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}