{"id":146382,"date":"2010-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-25T04:10:30","modified_gmt":"2014-08-24T22:40:30","slug":"urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010<\/div>\n
        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR\n\n                 Criminal Appeal No. 2598\/2000\n\n     1. Urmila Prasad Pandey Son of Munimahesh Pandey,\n                            Aged 50 years\n\n     2. Anup Kumar Pandey Son of Urmila Prasad Pandey,\n                         Aged 22 years\n\n     3. Smt. Shyama Bai Pandey wife of Urmila Prasad Pandey,\n        Aged 45 years\n              All R\/o Village Padkhuri Pawai, Police\n              Station- Rampur Nekin, District-Sidhi (MP)\n\n                                Vs.\n\n                     State of Madhya Pradesh\n\nPRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA &\n          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.A.SIDDIQUI\n\n\nShri S.C.Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for\n                           appellants.\n    Shri Yogesh Dhande, Panel Lawyer for respondent\/State.\n\n              JUDGMENT RESERVED ON             09\/11\/2010\n              JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON             15\/11\/2010\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
As Per : M.A.Siddiqui, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated<\/p>\n
12.10.2000 delivered by Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in<\/p>\n
Sessions Trial No. 62\/88, convicting the appellants under Section<\/p>\n
302\/34 IPC for imprisonment of life and under Section 498-A\/34<\/p>\n
IPC for imprisonment of two years’ R.I. and fine of Rs.500\/- each,<\/p>\n
in default of payment of fine, appellants to undergo further R.I.for<\/p>\n
six months.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Undisputedly, appellant no.1 Urmila Prasad Pandey is the<\/p>\n
father-in-law, appellant no.2 Anup Kumar is the husband and<\/p>\n
appellant no.3 Smt. Shyama Bai Pandey is the mother-in-law of
\n                                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased Geeta Pandey who died an unnatural death within seven<\/p>\n
years of her marriage. It is also not disputed that Gita Pandey died<\/p>\n
in her Sasural (house of appellants).\n<\/p>\n
3.    Facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are that Gita Pandey,<\/p>\n
deceased was married to appellant no.2 Anup Kumar near about<\/p>\n
five years back.    After marriage she used to reside with the<\/p>\n
appellants in Village-Padkhuri, PS-Rampur Nekin, District-Sidhi.<\/p>\n
After marriage Gita went to her nuptial house and kept on visiting<\/p>\n
her parental house. After sometime, she complained about the<\/p>\n
harassment meted out to her by the appellants for not giving<\/p>\n
sufficient things in dowry. Appellant no.1 wrote a letter (Ex.P\/8)<\/p>\n
and appellant no.2 wrote a letter (Ex.P\/9) in which dowry was<\/p>\n
demanded from nuptial side.     On 4.2.1988 Siddha Muni Prasad<\/p>\n
(PW.2) at about 15.05 PM informed in writing vide Ex.P\/2 that his<\/p>\n
niece Smt.Gita Pandey, daughter of Sant Sharan Gautam of<\/p>\n
Village-Maldeva, who was married to Anup Kumar Pandey, as after<\/p>\n
marriage there was dis-satisfaction relating to dowry, Urmila<\/p>\n
Prasad Pandey wrote so many letters in which demand of dowry<\/p>\n
was made and by which massage was given that if the dowry<\/p>\n
demand was not fulfilled then girl will not remain alive. Gita<\/p>\n
Pandey visited her nuptial house and complained about the<\/p>\n
cruelty. On the day of incident also Gita Pandey was beaten by the<\/p>\n
appellants in her in-laws house and she was also set on fire by<\/p>\n
which she died in the hospital. On this report, Keshav Singh<\/p>\n
(PW.17), Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police registered Crime No.17\/88<\/p>\n
vide Ex.P\/16. Marg was also registered vide Ex.P\/17. In the<\/p>\n
investigation J.P.Dangi (PW.18), Incharge of Police Station-Rampur<\/p>\n
Nekin called witnesses and made Panchnama of the dead body
\n                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
vide Ex.P\/1 and body was sent for postmortem vide Ex.P\/4-A<\/p>\n
through a Constable. Dr.S.P.Mishra (PW.6) on 5.2.1988 conducted<\/p>\n
the postmortem and found that there was burn of 90% on the body<\/p>\n
of Gita Pandey, her 7th and 8th ribs were fractured and sound was<\/p>\n
coming on being pressed. On dissection he found that right side of<\/p>\n
the liver was ruptured. Injuries of ribs, liver as well as of burn were<\/p>\n
ante mortem       were caused within 24 hours of postmortem<\/p>\n
examination. Death was caused due to burn as well as due to<\/p>\n
rupture of liver. He gave postmortem report Ex.P\/5.<\/p>\n
4.    In the investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared spot<\/p>\n
map, arrested the accused persons.         In the Marg inquiry and<\/p>\n
investigation it was revealed that accused persons subjected the<\/p>\n
deceased to cruelty for not meeting with the demand of dowry. As<\/p>\n
the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, accused persons had<\/p>\n
brutally beaten Geeta Pandey and set her on fire as a result of<\/p>\n
which she died.\n<\/p>\n
5.    After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sidhi and the case was committed for<\/p>\n
trial to the Court of Sessions, Sidhi. Charges under Sections<\/p>\n
302\/34 and 498-A\/34 IPC were framed on 14.03.1989.<\/p>\n
6.    Accused-appellants abjured their guilt.        Accused Urmila<\/p>\n
Prasad Pandey and Smt. Shyama Bai took the plea of false<\/p>\n
implication. Accused-appellant Anup Kumar also took the plea of<\/p>\n
false implication in the offence contending that he was not at home<\/p>\n
at the time of incident, he was on the way for his service. One boy<\/p>\n
Ramraj informed him that his wife has alighted herself so he came<\/p>\n
back and took her to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
7.    Relying on the evidence of dying declaration of Siddha Muni<\/p>\n
Prasad (PW.2) and Vanshpati (PW.3) and as the death was caused<\/p>\n
in the house where appellants were having exclusive access and no<\/p>\n
plausible explanation was given about the vital injuries found on<\/p>\n
the body of deceased, especially fracture of ribs and rupture of liver<\/p>\n
which could not have been self-inflicted and for cruelty, and motive<\/p>\n
on the evidence of Sant Sharan (PW.5) father of deceased, Smt.<\/p>\n
Chandrawati (PW.19) mother, Smt. Savitri (PW.4) aunt, Aruna<\/p>\n
(PW.7) sister, Umashankar (PW.10) uncle and Manwati (PW.16),<\/p>\n
trial Court held accused persons guilty and convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced them as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
8.    We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Learned counsel for appellants mainly submitted that death<\/p>\n
was not homicidal. Gita Pandey ignited herself, accused persons<\/p>\n
have been roped in falsely in the case. On the other hand, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the State    submitted that death was homicidal and<\/p>\n
accused persons were responsible for that.\n<\/p>\n
10.   On the perusal of evidence of Dr. S.P.Mishra (PW.6) it is<\/p>\n
revealed that he not only found that Gita’s body was burnt 90%,<\/p>\n
but there was a sound of fractured bones. He found that 7th and<\/p>\n
8th ribs were fractured. On dissection of dead body he found that<\/p>\n
right lobe of liver was ruptured just below the fracture of 7th and 8th<\/p>\n
ribs and ruptured area was 2 \u00bd Inch x 2 Inch x 1 Inch. It was also<\/p>\n
the reason of death along with the burn injuries.         Dr. Mishra<\/p>\n
(PW.6) specifically denied the suggestion to the effect that liver<\/p>\n
could be ruptured by burn injuries.      It means this ante mortem
\n                                  -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
injury was caused by hard and blunt object and cannot be self-<\/p>\n
inflicted. So as per medical evidence, death is homicidal.<\/p>\n
11.   Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that there is<\/p>\n
evidence of dying declaration of Siddha Muni Prasad (PW.2) and<\/p>\n
Vanshpati (PW.3) as has been relied by learned trial Court.<\/p>\n
12.   Learned    counsel   for   appellants   have   submitted   that<\/p>\n
statement of Siddha Muni Prasad (PW.2) about the dying<\/p>\n
declaration is that Triveni Prasad Tiwari and Jagannath Prasad<\/p>\n
Tiwari informed him that his niece has been burnt and was being<\/p>\n
carried in Doli and Doli was there at Kanwar Station. So he went<\/p>\n
there and saw that his niece Gita was in burnt condition.         On<\/p>\n
being asked from her, she told that she was beaten by her<\/p>\n
husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law and was set on fire. But<\/p>\n
this fact is not there in his written report (Ex.P\/2) which he lodged<\/p>\n
immediately after the death of his niece         and he specifically<\/p>\n
admitted vide para 8 in his cross-examination that report was<\/p>\n
written by Ramasre Prasad and he had signed it after reading it<\/p>\n
well, but this fact is not there. He is the real uncle so his evidence<\/p>\n
is subject to minute scrutiny.      Had he been informed by the<\/p>\n
deceased, then the report which was got written by this fellow this<\/p>\n
important thing would have been mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Learned counsel for the appellant have also submitted that<\/p>\n
as far as evidence of Vanshpati (PW.3) is concerned, he stated that<\/p>\n
Gita informed Siddhamuni Prasad (PW.2) about beating her and<\/p>\n
set her on fire, but Siddhamuni Prasad (PW.2) does not say even a<\/p>\n
single word about the presence of this fellow and he has also<\/p>\n
admitted this fact that he has not narrated this thing to anybody<\/p>\n
except in the Court and to the police. Counsel submitted that
\n                                    -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned trial Court has not only wrongfully believed on the<\/p>\n
statements of Siddhamuni Prasad (PW.2) and Vanshpati (PW.3),<\/p>\n
but has also taken into consideration the police statement under<\/p>\n
Section 161 Cr.P.C. in para 35 of the judgment.<\/p>\n
14.   On perusal of judgment, it seems that learned trial Court not<\/p>\n
only erred in believing the testimony of Siddhamuni Prasad (PW.2)<\/p>\n
and Vanshpati (PW.3), but it seems that trial Court was influenced<\/p>\n
by the police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.which cannot be<\/p>\n
taken into consideration at all.\n<\/p>\n
15.   We are in full agreement with the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellants that omission of not mentioning the fact of dying<\/p>\n
declaration by Siddhamuni Prasad (PW.2) in his written report<\/p>\n
(Ex.P\/2) is very fatal and not mentioning the name of Vanshpati<\/p>\n
(PW.3) causes a dent to the prosecution case. Triveni Prasad Tiwari<\/p>\n
was not examined and Jagannath Prasad (PW.20) does not support<\/p>\n
the version of Siddhamuni Prasad (PW.2).\n<\/p>\n
16.   Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since two<\/p>\n
ribs were fractured and liver was ruptured, these injuries could not<\/p>\n
be self-inflicted and in the circumstances of the case burn injury<\/p>\n
was also not of self-made or accidental, and in the absence of<\/p>\n
plausible explanation, it should be presumed that all the persons<\/p>\n
after beating the deceased set her on fire. He has placed reliance<\/p>\n
on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10<\/p>\n
SCC 681.\n<\/p>\n
17.        In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
(supra) , the Apex Court has held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
        “If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a
\n        house and in such circumstances where the
\n        assailants have all the opportunity to plan and
\n        commit the offence at the time and in
\n                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
       circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely
\n       difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
\n       establish the guilt of the accused if the strict
\n       principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted
\n       upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside
\n       over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent
\n       man is punished. A Judge also presides to see
\n       that a guilty man does not escape. The law does
\n       not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead
\n       evidence of such character which is almost
\n       impossible to be led or at any rate extremely
\n       difficult to be led……..Where an offence like
\n       murder is committed in secrecy inside a house,
\n       the initial burden to establish the case would
\n       undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the
\n       nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to
\n       establish the charge cannot be of the same degree
\n       as is required in other cases of circumstantial
\n       evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively
\n       lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the
\n       Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden
\n       on the inmates of the house to give a cogent
\n       explanation as to how the crime was committed.
\n       The inmates of the house cannot get away by
\n       simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation
\n       on the supposed premise that the burden to
\n       establish its case lies entirely upon the
\n       prosecution and there is no duty at all on an
\n       accused to offer any explanation……..Where an
\n       accused is alleged to have committed the murder
\n       of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading
\n       evidence to show that shortly before the
\n       commission of crime they were seen together or
\n       the offence takes place in the dwelling home where
\n       the husband also normally resided, it has been
\n       consistently held that if the accused does not offer
\n       any explanation how the wife received injuries or
\n       offers an explanation which is found to be false, it
\n       is a strong circumstance which indicates that he
\n       is responsible for commission of the crime.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.   Now the question before us is whether on the basis of facts<\/p>\n
brought on record, the husband of the deceased or all the accused<\/p>\n
would be liable for causing injuries to deceased. The indication<\/p>\n
given by the Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra (supra) appears to be that where an accused is<\/p>\n
alleged to have committed murder of his wife and prosecution<\/p>\n
succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before<\/p>\n
commission of crime they were together in dwelling home, it has to
\n                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
be held that if accused husband does not offer any explanation,<\/p>\n
how the wife received injuries or offers a false explanation, it<\/p>\n
would be a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible<\/p>\n
for commission of the crime.      Thus, it appears to indicate the<\/p>\n
responsibility of the husband only and not of other members of<\/p>\n
the   family   except   where   there   is   clear    evidence   of   their<\/p>\n
involvement.    In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death of<\/p>\n
deceased was shock as a result of rupture of right lobe of liver and<\/p>\n
extensive burn over the body. These injuries were ante mortem. On<\/p>\n
the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, it is not possible for<\/p>\n
us to hold all the persons in the house liable for causing injuries<\/p>\n
to deceased in view of the ratio of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs.<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra (supra).\n<\/p>\n
19.   Learned counsel for appellants have next submitted that<\/p>\n
there is tendency of roping all the members of the family. In Kans<\/p>\n
Raj vs. State of Punjab and others<\/a> (2000) 5 SCC 207, it was<\/p>\n
held that roping of too many persons has become a tendency after<\/p>\n
death of a married woman.\n<\/p>\n
20.   There is no direct evidence and the prosecution case is<\/p>\n
wholly based on circumstantial evidence.             It is well settled in<\/p>\n
Subhash Chand vs.        State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 702,<\/p>\n
Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs. State of W.B.<\/a> (1994) 2 SCC 220 and<\/p>\n
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> (1984) 4<\/p>\n
SCC 116 that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the<\/p>\n
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn<\/p>\n
have not only to be fully established, but also that all the<\/p>\n
circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature<\/p>\n
and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
\n                                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being<\/p>\n
explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused<\/p>\n
and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any<\/p>\n
reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of<\/p>\n
the accused.\n<\/p>\n
21.   As far as cruelty is concerned, the learned trial Court has<\/p>\n
very well appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion by appreciating the evidence of Siddhamuni Prasad<\/p>\n
(PW.2),   Savitri   (PW.4),   Sant   Saran   (PW.5),   Aruna   (PW.7),<\/p>\n
Umashankar (PW.10), Manwati (PW.16) and Chandravati (PW.19).<\/p>\n
Even the ocular version of prosecution is supported by letter<\/p>\n
written Ex.P\/8 and P\/9 by Urmila Prasad Pandey and Anup<\/p>\n
Kumar Pandey respectively in which it is very much clear that<\/p>\n
appellants were dis-satisfied not only with the deceased, but also<\/p>\n
with her parents.\n<\/p>\n
22.   As far as offence of homicidal death is concerned, the<\/p>\n
husband Anup Kumar Pandey has the access and as he has not<\/p>\n
offered any explanation about the injury on ribs and liver of the<\/p>\n
deceased as well as burn injury, so his conduct is further<\/p>\n
strengthening the prosecution case. He was the only person who<\/p>\n
could have given proper explanation about the injuries but he has<\/p>\n
taken defence that he was out of place of incident and he was<\/p>\n
informed by one Ramraj but no such Ramraj has been examined<\/p>\n
even after availing the opportunity of defence. The only defence<\/p>\n
witness who was examined is Gyanendra Prasad Agnihotri . He is<\/p>\n
not only the maternal uncle of Anup Kumar Pandey and brother-<\/p>\n
in-law of Urmila Prasad and brother of appellant Smt. Shyama<\/p>\n
bai, but he does not say anything about the alibi. Legally where\n<\/p>\n
                                – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
the plea of alibi is not proved, then the legal irresistible<\/p>\n
presumption is that accused was present on the spot and his plea<\/p>\n
of alibi is an after thought. In the circumstances together with not<\/p>\n
giving satisfactory explanation about the death of wife, the<\/p>\n
irresistible   presumption    would     be   that   Anup     Kumar<\/p>\n
Pandey,appellant no.2, husband of the deceased was the sole<\/p>\n
author of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
23.   As far as role of Urmila Prasad Pandey and Smt. Shyama<\/p>\n
Bai Pandey is concerned, no direct or indirect evidence has been<\/p>\n
produced that they were also involved in the murder of Gita<\/p>\n
Pandey.\n<\/p>\n
24.   Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part.        Appellants<\/p>\n
Urmila Prasad Pandey and Smt. Shyama Bai Pandey are acquitted<\/p>\n
of offence punishable under Section 302\/34 IPC by giving benefit<\/p>\n
of doubt. As far as Anup Kumar Pandey is concerned, his<\/p>\n
conviction is maintained under Section 302 IPC. He shall serve the<\/p>\n
remaining sentence as ordered by the trial Court. The conviction<\/p>\n
of all the accused-appellants under Section 498-A\/34 IPC is<\/p>\n
confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
25.   As far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that Urmila Prasad Pandey has already undergone more than six<\/p>\n
years imprisonment. In our opinion, as appellant Urmila Prasad<\/p>\n
Pandey has already served the sentence of two years, no further<\/p>\n
sentence need be awarded. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand<\/p>\n
discharged.\n<\/p>\n
26.   As far as Smt.Shyama Bai is concerned, learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that she is an old lady, she has already undergone<\/p>\n
imprisonment for about 88 days, she may not be sent to further\n<\/p>\n
                                – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
imprisonment.     In view of aforesaid, Smt. Shyama Bai is<\/p>\n
sentenced for the period already undergone by her. She is also on<\/p>\n
bail. Her bail bonds stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n
27.   Fine of Rs.500\/- each imposed upon the appellants Urmila<\/p>\n
Prasad Pandey and Smt. Shyama Bai Pandey is maintained. In<\/p>\n
case the fine amount is not deposited, they have to further<\/p>\n
undergo R.I. for six months as ordered by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
      (Rakesh Saksena)                     (M.A.Siddiqui)\n          Judge.                              Judge.\n\n\n\n\nJk.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 2598\/2000 1. Urmila Prasad Pandey Son of Munimahesh Pandey, Aged 50 years 2. Anup Kumar Pandey Son of Urmila Prasad Pandey, Aged 22 years 3. Smt. Shyama […]<\/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-146382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUrmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 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\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-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=\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-24T22:40:30+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\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-24T22:40:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2871,\"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\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-24T22:40:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 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":"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 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\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-24T22:40:30+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\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-24T22:40:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010"},"wordCount":2871,"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\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010","name":"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-24T22:40:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/urmila-prasad-ors-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Urmila Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 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\/146382","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=146382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}