{"id":138119,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-18T14:30:06","modified_gmt":"2019-01-18T09:00:06","slug":"dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: C Prasad<\/div>\n
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, C.K. Prasad<\/div>\n
                                                                REPORTABLE\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2004\n\n\nDHARAMVEER AND ORS.                     ..    APPELLANT(S)\n\n                      vs.\n\nSTATE OF U.P.                          ..     RESPONDENT(S)\n\n\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
C.K. PRASAD, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     This appeal by way of special leave filed<\/p>\n
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is<\/p>\n
against the judgment dated Ist July, 2003, of the<\/p>\n
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of<\/p>\n
2001 whereby it had affirmed the judgment and order<\/p>\n
of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed<\/p>\n
by   the   Special   Judge,   Bullandshahar    in   Sessions<\/p>\n
Trial No.154 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     The appellants Dharamveer, Sanjay, Vedi and<\/p>\n
Vinod besides other accused persons were put on
\n                                                                        2<\/span>
\ntrial for offence under Sections 148, 302\/149 and<\/p>\n
307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court<\/p>\n
convicted all the appellants under Sections 148 and<\/p>\n
302\/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them<\/p>\n
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and<\/p>\n
life    respectively.        They    were       further    convicted<\/p>\n
under Sections 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10<\/p>\n
years.        Sentences           were      directed       to     run<\/p>\n
concurrently.         On     an     appeal       the   High     Court<\/p>\n
dismissed the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       Prosecution commenced on the basis of report<\/p>\n
given by PW.1 Jaipal Singh on 10\/10\/1997 to the In-<\/p>\n
charge out-post at Khurja junction within Khurja<\/p>\n
Police    Station.    According      to     the    prosecution     on<\/p>\n
10th October, 1997 at 4 P.M. the informant PW.1,<\/p>\n
Jaipal     Singh     along    with        his     nephew      Sheodan<\/p>\n
(deceased) brother Jagdish(deceased) besides other<\/p>\n
persons including Shiv Charan (PW2) had gone from<\/p>\n
their    village     Ramgarhi       to    village      Auranga    to<\/p>\n
participate in a Panchayat convened to settle the<\/p>\n
dispute between Prakash and his son.                   According to
\n                                                                    3<\/span>
\nthe informant on way back, the two deceased and<\/p>\n
Ravi Kiran were 30 to 35 steps ahead of them and<\/p>\n
after they had crossed the grove of Ravi Kiran,<\/p>\n
appellants herein armed with country-made pistols<\/p>\n
came out of millet field of Shreepal and started<\/p>\n
firing     on    the     two   deceased    and    Ravi     Kiran.<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution Jagdish ran towards<\/p>\n
Ramgarhi      and   Sheodan    towards    Auranga    and   these<\/p>\n
appellants chased Jagdish and             killed him whereas<\/p>\n
Sanjay, Sheesh Pal and Neetu               (since acquitted)<\/p>\n
followed Sheodan and caused firearm              injury causing<\/p>\n
his death in the field of Balwant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.       On the basis of the aforesaid information<\/p>\n
Crime No.21\/118\/97 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307<\/p>\n
and 302 Indian Penal Code was registered at 8.20<\/p>\n
P.M.     at     Khurja    Police   Station.       After    usual<\/p>\n
investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against<\/p>\n
the appellants and ultimately they were committed<\/p>\n
to Court of Sessions where they were charged for<\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 148, 302\/149<\/p>\n
and 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code.                Appellants<\/p>\n
denied to have committed the offence and claimed to
\n                                                                       4<\/span>
\nbe    tried.   In    order    to     bring    home   the   charge,<\/p>\n
prosecution, altogether examined seven witnesses,<\/p>\n
out of which PW.1 Jaipal Singh and PW.2 Shivcharan<\/p>\n
are   the    eye-witnesses      to    the     occurrence.      PW.3,<\/p>\n
Dr.P.P. Singh is a Medical Officer who had examined<\/p>\n
Ravi Kiran and found lacerated wound on his person<\/p>\n
caused by blunt object. PW.4, Dr.S.K. Sharma is<\/p>\n
another     Medical    Officer,      who     had   conducted    post<\/p>\n
mortem examination on the dead bodies of Jagdish<\/p>\n
and Sheodan and found ante-mortem gun shot injuries<\/p>\n
on their person. In his opinion both the deceased<\/p>\n
died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of gun<\/p>\n
shot injuries. PW.5, Ashok Kumar is a Constable who<\/p>\n
took the dead bodies to mortuary for post mortem<\/p>\n
examination. PW.6, Madan Mohan is Sub-Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police,     who     after     investigation        submitted     the<\/p>\n
charge-sheet        against    the    appellants.      PW.7,     Ram<\/p>\n
Naresh Yadav is Incharge Police outpost, who proved<\/p>\n
the check-reports.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.      Besides       oral    evidence       several    documents<\/p>\n
including first information report and post mortem<\/p>\n
reports were also brought on record.
\n                                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
6.       Relying on the evidence of Medical Officer<\/p>\n
and the post mortem reports, the trial court came<\/p>\n
to     the     conclusion       that    the    two    deceased    met<\/p>\n
homicidal deaths. Further, relying on the evidence<\/p>\n
of PW.1 and PW.2, the trial court held that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond<\/p>\n
all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced the appellants as above. This has been<\/p>\n
affirmed by the High Court in appeal.<\/p>\n
7.       Before        we    advert      to     the     submissions<\/p>\n
advanced, it is expedient to examine the scope of<\/p>\n
the power under Article 136 of the Constitution,<\/p>\n
while        hearing    appeal     against     the    judgment    of<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence. Mr. J.C. Gupta, learned<\/p>\n
Senior        Counsel       appearing     on    behalf     of     the<\/p>\n
appellants submits that powers under Article 136 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution is very wide and nothing prevents<\/p>\n
this    Court     to    upset    the    concurrent     findings    of<\/p>\n
guilt.        In support of the submission reliance has<\/p>\n
been placed on a decision of this Court in the case<\/p>\n
of Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005)
\n                                                         6<\/span>
\n6 SCC 211 wherein it has been held as follows:<\/p>\n
           “10.   From   the   aforesaid   series   of
\n    decisions of this Court on the exercise of
\n    power of the Supreme Court under Article 136
\n    of   the   Constitution    following   principles
\n    emerge :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    i) The powers of this Court under Article
\n    136 of the Constitution are very wide but in
\n    criminal   appeals   this  Court   does   not
\n    interfere with the concurrent findings of
\n    the fact save in exceptional circumstances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    ii) It is open to this Court to interfere
\n    with the findings of fact given by the High
\n    Court if the High Court has acted perversely
\n    or otherwise improperly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the
\n    power under Article 136 only in very
\n    exceptional circumstances as and when a
\n    question of law of general public importance
\n    arises or a decision shocks the conscience
\n    of the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    iv) When the evidence adduced by the
\n    prosecution fell short of the test of
\n    reliability and acceptability and as such it
\n    is highly unsafe to act upon it. And<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    v)The appreciation of evidence and finding
\n      is vitiated by any error of law of
\n      procedure  or   found  contrary   to  the
\n      principles of natural justice, errors of
\n      record and misreading of the evidence, or
\n      where the conclusions of the High Court
\n      are manifestly perverse and unsupportable
\n      from the evidence on record. (underlining
\n      is ours)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.       Mr. Ratnakar Dass, learned Senior Counsel,<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits<\/p>\n
that this Court in exercise of the powers under<\/p>\n
Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot act<\/p>\n
as   a   Court   of     Appeal    and   upset     the   concurrent<\/p>\n
findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and<\/p>\n
the Appellate Court.          Reliance has been placed on a<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel<\/p>\n
and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2000) 1 SCC 358 in<\/p>\n
which it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “10.In view of the aforesaid settled
\n       legal position, therefore, we have to see
\n       whether the findings of fact reached by the
\n       High Court agreeing with the appreciation of
\n       evidence by the Sessions Court suffer from
\n       any patent error of law or have resulted in
\n       miscarriage of justice which can call for
\n       our interference in this appeal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.       We do not have the slightest hesitation in<\/p>\n
accepting the broad submission of Mr. Gupta that<\/p>\n
power under Article 136 of the Constitution is very<\/p>\n
wide and nothing prevents this Court to reappraise<\/p>\n
the evidence and set aside concurrent finding of<\/p>\n
fact     holding        the      accused     guilty.       However,<\/p>\n
appreciation       of    evidence       is   resorted      to,    in<\/p>\n
exceptional      circumstances       when    it    comes    to   the
\n                                                                       8<\/span>
\nconclusion that the finding of guilt recorded by<\/p>\n
the High Court is perverse, meaning thereby the<\/p>\n
High    Court    had     recorded       the     finding    without<\/p>\n
consideration of relevant material or consideration<\/p>\n
of irrelevant material, the consideration or non-<\/p>\n
consideration    whereof        shall    have   bearing     on   the<\/p>\n
finding      recorded.        The     finding    can      also    be<\/p>\n
considered perverse, if a person duly instructed in<\/p>\n
law will not come to that finding. This Court may<\/p>\n
also interfere with the finding of fact when it<\/p>\n
finds violation of established procedure going to<\/p>\n
the root of the case.               Where the High Court has<\/p>\n
analysed the evidence in great detail and found the<\/p>\n
evidence      reliable        there      is     no     scope     for<\/p>\n
interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.     Bearing in mind the principles aforesaid we<\/p>\n
proceed to examine the submissions unfolded.<\/p>\n
11.     Mr. Gupta submits that there is inordinate<\/p>\n
delay   in   receipt     of    the    Special    Report    by    the<\/p>\n
Magistrate. He points out that the occurrence had<\/p>\n
taken place on 10th October, 1997 at 4 P.M.; and
\n                                                      9<\/span>
\nthe First Information Report was registered at    8<\/p>\n
P.M., the Special Report under Section 157 of the<\/p>\n
Code of     Criminal Procedure was received on 17th<\/p>\n
October, 1997. This inordinate delay in receipt of<\/p>\n
the report, according to Mr. Gupta, is sufficient<\/p>\n
to reject the case of the prosecution. In support<\/p>\n
of the submission reliance has been placed on a<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in the case of L\/NK. Meharaj<\/p>\n
Singh vs.   State of Uttar Pradesh   JT 1994 (3) SC<\/p>\n
440 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph<\/p>\n
12:\n<\/p>\n
       “12. FIR in a criminal case and
\n       particularly in a murder case is a
\n       vital and valuable piece of evidence
\n       for the purpose of appreciating the
\n       evidence led at the trial. The
\n       object of insisting upon prompt
\n       lodging of the FIR is to obtain the
\n       earliest information regarding the
\n       circumstance in which the crime was
\n       committed, including the names of
\n       the actual culprits and the parts
\n       played by them, the weapons, if any,
\n       used, as also the names of the eye
\n       witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging
\n       the    FIR    often    results    in
\n       embellishment, which is a creature
\n       of an after thought.   On account of
\n       delay, the FIR not only gets bereft
\n       of the advantage of spontaneity,
\n       danger   also  creeps   in   of  the
\n       introduction of a coloured version
\n       or exaggerated story.    With a view
\n       to determine whether the FIR was
\n                                              10<\/span>
\nlodged at the time it is alleged to
\nhave    been    recorded,     the    courts
\ngenerally look for certain external
\nchecks.     One of the checks is the
\nreceipt of the copy of the FIR,
\ncalled a special report in a murder
\ncase, by the local Magistrate.           If
\nthis report is received by the
\nMagistrate late it can give rise to
\nan inference that the FIR was not
\nlodged at the time it is alleged to
\nhave    been    recorded,     unless,    of
\ncourse the prosecution can offer a
\nsatisfactory      explanation     for   the
\ndelay in despatching or receipt of
\nthe copy of the FIR by the local
\nMagistrate.      Prosecution has led no
\nevidence at all in this behalf. The
\nsecond     external       check     equally
\nimportant is the sending of the copy
\nof the FIR along with the dead body
\nand its reference in the inquest
\nreport.      Even though the inquest
\nreport, prepared under Section 174
\nCr.P.C.    is    aimed    at    serving   a
\nstatutory function, to lend credence
\nto the prosecution case, the details
\nof   the     FIR    and    the    gist   of
\nstatements recorded during inquest
\nproceedings get reflected in the
\nreport.        The   absence     of   those
\ndetails is indicative of the fact
\nthat the prosecution story was still
\nin embryo and had not been given any
\nshape and that the FIR came to be
\nrecorded      later     on     after    due
\ndeliberations and consultations and
\nwas then ante timed to give it the
\ncolour of a promptly lodged FIR. In
\nour opinion, on account of the
\ninfirmities as noticed above, the
\nFIR    has     lost     its    value    and
\nauthenticity and it appears to us
\nthat the same has been ante timed
\nand had not been recorded till the
\n                                                                    11<\/span>
\n         inquest proceedings were over at the
\n         spot by PW.8.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.     Mr.   Dass,    submits      that   mere        delay   in<\/p>\n
despatch of the FIR itself is not fatal to the case<\/p>\n
of the prosecution.          He points out that the First<\/p>\n
Information Report was lodged immediately and in<\/p>\n
fact the investigation started soon thereafter and<\/p>\n
even    the   dead    body    was   sent   for    post-mortem<\/p>\n
examination within a reasonable time.            Hence in his<\/p>\n
submission mere delay in despatch of the FIR is of<\/p>\n
no consequence.        Reliance has been placed on a<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in the case of Pala Singh &<\/p>\n
Anr. vs. State of Punjab 1972 (2) SCC 640 and our<\/p>\n
attention     drawn   to   paragraph   8   of    the    judgment<\/p>\n
which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “8. Shri Kohli strongly criticised
\n       the   fact   that    the   occurrence   report
\n       contemplated by Section 157 Cr.P.C. was
\n       sent to the Magistrate concerned very
\n       late.    Indeed, this challenge, like the
\n       argument of interpolation and belated
\n       despatch   of   the    inquest   report,   was
\n       developed for the purpose of showing that
\n       the investigation was not just, fair and
\n       forthright and, therefore, the prosecution
\n       case   must   be   looked    at   with   great
\n       suspicion.       This    argument    is   also
\n       unacceptable.       No   doubt,   the   report
\n       reached the magistrate at about 6 p.m.
\n                                                                         12<\/span>
\n       Section 157 Cr.P.C. requires such report
\n       to be sent forthwith by the police officer
\n       concerned to a magistrate empowered to
\n       take cognizance of such offence. This is
\n       really designed to keep the magistrate
\n       informed of the investigation of such
\n       cognizable offence so as to be able to
\n       control the investigation and if necessary
\n       to   give   appropriate    direction   under
\n       Section 159. But when we find in this case
\n       that the FIR was actually recorded without
\n       delay and the investigation started on the
\n       basis of that FIR and there is no other
\n       infirmity brought to our notice, then,
\n       however improper or objectionable the
\n       delayed receipt of the report by the
\n       magistrate concerned it cannot by itself
\n       justify    the    conclusion     that    the
\n       investigation    was    tainted    and   the
\n       prosecution insupportable.    It is not the
\n       appellant’s case that they have been
\n       prejudiced by this delay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.      Having given our thoughtful consideration to<\/p>\n
the    submissions      advanced,       we    do   not    find     any<\/p>\n
substance       in     the       submission        of     Mr.Gupta.<\/p>\n
Information     in    regard     to    the    incident    was    given<\/p>\n
immediately     after      the   occurrence        and   the     First<\/p>\n
Information Report was lodged on the same day at<\/p>\n
8.20 p.m. The occurrence had taken place at about<\/p>\n
4.00 p.m. on 10\/10\/1997 and therefore there does not<\/p>\n
seem    any   delay   in     lodging    the    First     Information<\/p>\n
Report. Not only this, after the First Information<\/p>\n
Report    was   lodged,       investigation        proceeded,      the
\n                                                                              13<\/span>
\nstatement      of    the   witnesses     recorded,          the    inquest<\/p>\n
report prepared and the dead bodies sent for post-<\/p>\n
mortem    examination       without     delay.       It     is    also   on<\/p>\n
record that the Special Report was sent by post. In<\/p>\n
the background of the aforesaid facts, mere delay in<\/p>\n
receipt of       the Special       Report,      in     no    way    causes<\/p>\n
doubt to the case of the prosecution. Furthermore,<\/p>\n
none of the witnesses including the investigating<\/p>\n
officer of the case have been cross-examined on this<\/p>\n
point.    Therefore, we are not inclined to reject the<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution merely on the ground that<\/p>\n
there was delay in despatch of the First Information<\/p>\n
Report.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.      Mr.    Gupta,     then    submits      that      the      entire<\/p>\n
prosecution case is dependent upon the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW.1 Jaipal Singh and PW.2 Shiv Charan and they<\/p>\n
being inimical to the appellants, their evidence<\/p>\n
deserve to be rejected and once it is done so,<\/p>\n
there    is    no    evidence     on   record    to     connect       the<\/p>\n
appellants with the crime.             He points out there is<\/p>\n
overwhelming evidence on record to show old enmity<\/p>\n
between        the    prosecution        witnesses           and      the
\n                                                                14<\/span>
\nappellants.   Both    the    witnesses      are   not     the<\/p>\n
residents of the village, where the occurrence had<\/p>\n
taken place and further the witnesses having no<\/p>\n
land near the place of occurrence their presence<\/p>\n
at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful. Mr.<\/p>\n
Gupta   emphasises   that   in     order   to   show    their<\/p>\n
presence at the place of occurrence, the story of<\/p>\n
Panchayat at village Auranga was cooked up. Non-<\/p>\n
examination   of   Ravi   Kiran,   as   witness   has    also<\/p>\n
been highlighted. It has been contended that in<\/p>\n
order to conceal the truth this witness, who is<\/p>\n
the most competent witness, has been withheld by<\/p>\n
the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.     All these submissions are in the realm of<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence and the High Court has<\/p>\n
meticulously examined it. The evidence of an eye<\/p>\n
witness can not be rejected only on the ground<\/p>\n
that enmity exists between the parties. The High<\/p>\n
Court in this connection has observed as follows :<\/p>\n
      “In view of extreme strained relations
\n      between the two sides, no independent
\n      witness could dare to depose in favour of
\n      the prosecution risking his own life. Two
\n                                                                        15<\/span>
\n      eyewitnesses P.W.1 Jaipal Singh and P.W.2
\n      Shiv Charan cannot be disbelieved merely
\n      because   of   being  related   with  the
\n      deceased, especially in the circumstances
\n      narrated above.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.      True it is that Ravi Kiran could have been an<\/p>\n
important witness to unfold the true story but his<\/p>\n
non-examination,      in    our        opinion,    itself   is    not<\/p>\n
sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution.<\/p>\n
It has come in evidence of PW.1 Jaipal that later<\/p>\n
on prosecution suspected that he was accomplice in<\/p>\n
the   crime.   Hence       his    non-examination       has      been<\/p>\n
explained. Not only this, the evidence of the two<\/p>\n
eye-witnesses, with minor contradictions here and<\/p>\n
there has withstood the test of cross-examination<\/p>\n
and therefore the case of the prosecution is not<\/p>\n
fit to be thrown out on these grounds.<\/p>\n
17.      Mr. Gupta submits that the two eye-witnesses<\/p>\n
namely PW.1 Jaipal Singh and PW.2 Shiv Charan were<\/p>\n
highly     inimical    to        the     accused     persons      and<\/p>\n
according to the prosecution itself both had come<\/p>\n
at a hand-shaking distance, they would not have<\/p>\n
been left unharmed and hence their claim to be the
\n                                                                             16<\/span>
\neye-witnesses to the incident is highly doubtful.<\/p>\n
18.     We    do     not    find     any    substance          in   this<\/p>\n
submission of Mr. Gupta. Why the appellants did not<\/p>\n
cause   any    injury      to    these    witnesses      can     not    be<\/p>\n
explained     by     the    prosecution.         It     will     require<\/p>\n
entering      into    their       mind.    Human      behaviour        are<\/p>\n
sometimes     strange.          Merely    the    fact     that      these<\/p>\n
witnesses did not suffer any injury, will not make<\/p>\n
their evidence untrustworthy.                   This aspect of the<\/p>\n
matter has been considered by the High Court in<\/p>\n
right perspective and it has held as follows:-<\/p>\n
      “The statements of the witnesses show that
\n      Sheodan, Ravi Kiran and Jagdish were 30 or
\n      35 steps ahead of other witnesses.      On
\n      coming out of the crop the accused persons
\n      targeted Jagdish and Sheodan. Therefore,
\n      if injuries were not caused to other
\n      persons of the family of the victims i.e.
\n      two eyewitnesses, it does not mean that
\n      they were not present on the spot. The
\n      entire group could not be targeted by the
\n      accused as it was likely to result in the
\n      failure of their mission.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
19.   In the result, we do not find any merit in<\/p>\n
the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n
20.   The Appellants are on bail.   Their bail bonds<\/p>\n
stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender<\/p>\n
and to serve out remainder of the sentence.<\/p>\n
                            ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)<\/p>\n
……………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                             (C.K. PRASAD)
\nNew Delhi,
\nMarch 09, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 Author: C Prasad Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, C.K. Prasad REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2004 DHARAMVEER AND ORS. .. APPELLANT(S) vs. STATE OF U.P. .. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G […]<\/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-138119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 - 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\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-18T09:00:06+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-18T09:00:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3007,\"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\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-18T09:00:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 - 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\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-18T09:00:06+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-18T09:00:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010"},"wordCount":3007,"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\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010","name":"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-18T09:00:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamveer-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/138119","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=138119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}