{"id":142826,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-15T23:55:07","modified_gmt":"2019-03-15T18:25:07","slug":"ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/625\/2000\t 9\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 625 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRANCHHOD\n@ HAKKO JIVANDAS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nTHROUGH\nJAIL for Appellant(s)\n: 1,MR BS SUPEHIA for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR. MUKESH PATEL,\nASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)<\/p>\n
Challenge
\n\tin this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\n\t(?Sthe Code?? for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and
\n\torder dated 26.5.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1999 by
\n\tthe learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, by which the Appellant (?Sthe
\n\tAccused?? for short) has been convicted for commission of the
\n\toffence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (?SIPC??
\n\tfor short) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life and fine of
\n\tRs.1000\/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tprosecution case as disclosed from FIR and unfolded during trial is
\n\tas under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tAs
\n\tper the prosecution case PW-4 Danabhai Nathubhai has filed the
\n\tcomplaint before PW-14 Arvindsingh C. Zala PSI ?SB?? Division
\n\tPolice Station, Jamnager, wherein inter alia it is alleged that;\n<\/p>\n
His
\n\tname is Danabhai Nathubhai.  He is Parmar Harijan by cast and aged
\n\tabout 37 years and is doing masonry work.  He is residing at
\n\tChandgra Taluka Jamnagar.  On being asked personally he has lodged
\n\this complaint. His wife Ratanaben is a sarpanch of the village
\n\tChandraga for the last four years.  Today, when he was present in
\n\this house at about 7:00 in the morning, at that time Shailesh, son
\n\tof Bavaji Mohandas, of his village came to his house and told that
\n\t?Smy uncle Haka has killed my father??.  So he went with him to
\n\this house where the Deputy Sarpanch Jerabhai and Delubha Raghubha
\n\tand Jorubha Danbha etc. along with many persons of his village had
\n\tgathered near the house.  When he looked in the compound on the back
\n\tside of the house, the dead body of Mohandas Bavaji was lying on a
\n\tcot.  A blow of crowbar appeared to have been given on his face.  So
\n\the inquired with his mother and wife.  It came to be known that
\n\tMohandas was sleeping on a cot in the compound after supper due to
\n\theat on the last night.  They were sleeping in the courtyard of the
\n\thouse.  When the wife of Mohandas took her younger son for latrine
\n\tin the compound at early morning, the dead body was seen.  Haka was
\n\tquarreling with his brother. On inquiry, Haka showed crowbar from
\n\tthe window on back of the room and told that ?Ssee, he is killed??.
\n\t Therefore, the door of a room was closed.  The cause of this
\n\tincident is that Haka alias Ranchoddas Jivandas Bavaji was telling
\n\tto marry with the wife of his brother Mohandas.  So, he was told to
\n\tgo away as there cannot be two swords in one scabbard but he did not
\n\tgo and committed murder.  His mother informed these facts and asked
\n\thim to lodge a complaint before the police.  So he has come on a
\n\tMotorcycle to inform.  The dead body is lying there and the Accused
\n\tis kept in custody.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\t\tThe
\n\taforesaid complaint is registered vide CR No. 107\/99 at ‘B’ Division
\n\tPolice Station, Jamnagar.  During the course of investigation PW-14
\n\theld panchnama at Exh.26 and thereafter sent the same for PM.  He,
\n\tthereafter drawn the panchnama of the scene of offence and recovered
\n\tthe pillow and mattress having blood stains and sent the same to FSL
\n\tfor chemical analysis.  He has also drawn the panchnama of the
\n\taccused as well as the crowbar which was produced by the accused in
\n\tpresence of panchas.  He recorded the statement of the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\t\tOn
\n\treceipt of the PM as well as FSL report, as the sufficient
\n\tincriminating evidence was found against the Accused for commission
\n\tof the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he filed charge
\n\tsheet in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\t\tAs
\n\tthe offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the
\n\tCourt of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar
\n\tcommitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Jamnagar.  The learned
\n\tSessions Judge, Jamnagar, framed charge against the Accused for
\n\tcommission of   the offence punishable under Section 302IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\t\tThe
\n\tcharge was read over and explained to the Accused.  The Accused
\n\tpleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
\n\tTherefore, he was put to trial by the learned Sessions Judge in
\n\tSessions Case No. 117 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
2.6\t\tIn
\n\torder to bring home the charge leveled against the Accused, the
\n\tprosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses and relied upon their
\n\toral testimony.  Evidences of relevant witnesses would be discussed
\n\thereinafter in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.7\t\tTo
\n\tprove the culpability of the Accused, the prosecution has also
\n\tproduced number of documents and relied upon the contents of the
\n\tsame.  Relevant documents would be discussed as and when required in
\n\tthis judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.8\t\tAfter
\n\trecording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the
\n\ttrial Court explained to the Accused, the circumstances appearing
\n\tagainst him and recorded his further statement under Section 313 of
\n\tthe Code. In his further statement, the Accused denied the case of
\n\tthe prosecution in its entirety. He has stated that a false case has
\n\tbeen filed against him.\n<\/p>\n
\t However, he has neither led any evidence nor examined any witness
\n\tin support of his defence.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.9\t\tOn
\n\tappreciation, evaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence on
\n\trecord, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the deceased
\n\tMohandas had died a homicidal death and the Accused is the author of
\n\tthe injury caused to the deceased with crowbar. The prosecution
\n\ttherefore successfully established the complicity of the Accused for
\n\tthe offence of murder.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.10\t\tOn
\n\tthe aforesaid finding, the trial Court has convicted the Accused for
\n\tcommission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and
\n\tsentenced to suffer imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.1000\/- in
\n\tdefault to undergo further SI of 2 months, giving rise to instant
\n\tAppeal at the instance of Accused.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.B.S.Supehia,
\n\tlearned advocate of the Accused, who has appeared by way of legal
\n\taid, has contended that the witness Shailesh has stated this
\n\tincident after two months and that the prosecution has not examined
\n\tthe wife of the deceased as witness before the trial Court,
\n\ttherefore, prosecution case suffers from non-examination of the star
\n\twitness. He has also submitted that the Accused and deceased both
\n\tare brothers, therefore, it cannot be believed that the Accused has
\n\tcommitted murder of his brother. Alternatively, it is submitted by
\n\thim that the incident has taken place in a trifling manner with
\n\trespect to which the deceased had given grave and sudden provocation
\n\tto the Accused, therefore, offence is not a murder under Section 302
\n\tbut is a culpable homicide punishable under Section 302(part-II).
\n\tHe, therefore, urges that the impugned judgment and order of
\n\tconviction recorded against the Accused is required to be altered
\n\tinto conviction under Section 304 either Part-I or Part-II of IPC,
\n\tand as the Accused has already undergone more than 9 years of
\n\timprisonment, period undergone by him may be treated as substantive
\n\tsentence and he may be set at liberty. He, therefore, urges to allow
\n\tthis Appeal by altering the conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Per
\n\tcontra Mr. Mukesh Patel, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
\n\tRespondent State of Gujarat has submitted that there is no infirmity
\n\tor illegality committed by the trial Court. Therefore, no
\n\tinterference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.  He,
\n\ttherefore, urged to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the judgment
\n\tand order of conviction and sentence recorded against the Accused by
\n\tthe trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tCourt has considered the submissions advanced by the learned
\n\tadvocates appearing for the parties and perused the impugned
\n\tjudgment and order. This Court has undertaken a complete and
\n\tcomprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the
\n\tentire evidence on record, which is read and re-read by the learned
\n\tadvocates of the parties with reference to broad and reasonable
\n\tprobabilities of the case.  This Court has examined the entire
\n\tevidence on record for itself independently of the learned Judge of
\n\tthe trial Court and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of
\n\tthe Accused and infirmities pressed, scrupulously with a view to
\n\tfind out as to whether the trial Court has rightly recorded the
\n\torder of conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere
\n\tis no dispute to the fact that the deceased had died a homicidal
\n\tdeath.  To prove this fact, prosecution has examined and relied upon
\n\tthe oral testimony of PW-1 Dr. Satish Kumar at Exh.8, who has
\n\tperformed the PM on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the
\n\tPM report, which is on record at Exh.9.  On conjoint reading of the
\n\toral testimony of PW-1 Dr. Satish Kumar at Exh.8 and PM report at
\n\tExh.9, it is seen that the deceased had died because of shock and
\n\themorrhage on account of injuries of head. We are, therefore, of the
\n\topinion that the trial Court has rightly held that the deceased had
\n\tdied a homicidal death and therefore, it has to be held that the
\n\tdeceased had died a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow
\n\tthe next question would be whether the Accused is the author of the
\n\tinjuries caused to the deceased.  In this connection, the
\n\tprosecution has relied upon the oral testimony of PW-4 Danabhai
\n\tNathubhai at Exh.14, who has inter alia testified that he knows the
\n\tAccused as well as deceased.  On the day of incident, his wife was
\n\tthe sarpanch of the village.  On the day of the incident, the son of
\n\tdeceased named Shailesh came to his house and said that his uncle
\n\thas killed his father, therefore, he went to the house of Shailesh
\n\tand saw the dead body of the deceased Mohandas lying on the cot.
\n\tHe, therefore, lodged the complaint which is on record at Exh.28.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tprosecution thereafter has examined and relied upon the oral
\n\ttestimony of PW-5 Shailesh, son of the deceased at Exh.15.  He has
\n\tinter alia testified that his uncle Ranchoddas had inflicted two
\n\tblows on his father with the crowbar. He was therefore, afraid and
\n\twent to Osari and slept there and did not talk to anybody about the
\n\tincident.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tprosecution thereafter has examined and relied upon the oral
\n\ttestimony of PW-6 Jairaj Ramjibhai at Exh.16, who has inter alia
\n\ttestified that he was called by Laxmiben, who is the mother of the
\n\tdeceased and the Accused both. Laxmiben told him that his son Haka
\n\thas killed his another son Mohandas.  He has also inquired from the
\n\tAccused, who told before him that he has killed his brother.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tprosecution thereafter has examined and relied upon the oral
\n\ttestimony of PW-8 Dilubha Rajubha at Exh.18.  He has testified that
\n\the knows both the brothers, i.e. the Accused and the deceased.  He
\n\twas called by the mother of  Haka, i.e. the Accused at 7:00 in the
\n\tmorning and told him that Haka has killed his son Mohandas.  He saw
\n\tdead body of the deceased Mohandas.  Thereafter the Accused, after
\n\tshowing the crowbar made a confessional statement before him that he
\n\thas killed his brother.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tprosecution thereafter has examined and relied upon the oral
\n\ttestimony of PW-9 Laxmiben at Exh.19, who is the mother of both the
\n\tAccused and the deceased.  She has testified that she had three
\n\tsons.  One is at Bombay, the another in Delhi and the third named
\n\tMohandas had died. The Accused wanted to
\n\tmarry with the wife of his brother Mohandas, therefore, this
\n\tincident had taken place.  His son Ranchod has killed his another
\n\tson with crowbar.  After killing Mohandas, he went inside the room
\n\tand closed it from inside and gave crowbar from the window and told
\n\tthat he has killed his brother Mohandas.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\n\treappraisal of the entire prosecution evidence and on a threadbare
\n\texamination of the same, there is no manner of doubt that the
\n\tAccused is the author of the injuries caused to the deceased with
\n\tthe crowbar.  The son of the deceased Shailesh has seen the incident
\n\tbut he could not narrate it because he was afraid.  Besides this,
\n\tthe Accused had made extra-juridical confession and therefore, there
\n\tis no reason for the mother of the Accused to tell lie against him
\n\tand therefore, according to us, the complicity of the Accused for
\n\tmurder is duly established.  Mr. B.S.Supehia, learned advocate of
\n\tthe Accused is unable to dislodge the findings recorded by the trial
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\tfind ourselves in complete agreement with the finding, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of conviction and sentence
\n\trecorded by the trial Court, as according to us, no other finding,
\n\tconclusion and order, is possible except the one reached by the
\n\ttrial Court, which is required to be affirmed by us.\n<\/p>\n
\tSeen
\n\tin the above context, there is no reason or justifiable ground to
\n\tinterfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
\n\tsentence passed by the trial Court, and as the Appeal lacks merit,
\n\tdeserves to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and order passed
\n\tby the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the Appeal fails and accordingly  it is
\n\tdismissed. Resultantly the judgment and order of conviction and
\n\tsentence dated 26.5.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No.117 of 1999 by
\n\tthe learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, is hereby confirmed and
\n\tmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.Kapadia,J)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.Saiyed,J)<\/p>\n
Jayanti*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/625\/2000 9\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 625 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRanchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 - 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\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-15T18:25:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T18:25:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T18:25:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 - 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\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-15T18:25:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T18:25:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":2206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008","name":"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T18:25:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhod-vs-appearance-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranchhod vs Appearance on 23 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/142826","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=142826"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142826\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}