{"id":148494,"date":"2009-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-07T10:15:02","modified_gmt":"2015-05-07T04:45:02","slug":"tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Aftab Alam<\/div>\n<pre>                               [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 80\n                     TAMEEZUDDIN @ <a href=\"\/doc\/160402\/\">TAMMU\n                                 v.\n                    STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI\n                (Criminal Appeal No.1289 of<\/a> 2004)\n                         AUGUST 26, 2009\n               [Harjit singh bedi and Aftab Alam, JJ.]\n\n    The following Order of the Court was delivered\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>    The appellant herein, Tameezuddin, was convicted under<br \/>\nSection 376 of the IPC by the Court of Sessions and sentenced to<br \/>\nundergo R.I. for 84 months and a fine of Rs.14,000\/- and in default<br \/>\nof payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months and under<br \/>\nSection 506 (ii) of the IPC, to a sentence of 36 months and fine<br \/>\nand in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one month,<br \/>\nboth the sentences were directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As per the prosecution story PW.1, the prosecutrix, and her<br \/>\nhusband, PW-2 Dinesh Mishra who was a rickshaw puller by<br \/>\nprofession, had come to Delhi along with her children two months<br \/>\nprior to the occurrence. On 28th September, 1995, PW-1 &amp; PW-2<br \/>\nhad gone to the latter&#8217;s ex-employer, a factory owner DW.1 Mohd.<br \/>\nZaki, to recover some money that was due to him. When they<br \/>\nreached the factory premises they found that DW-1 was not<br \/>\npresent but several other persons including the appellant, a shop<br \/>\nkeeper who was known to PW-2, were present. The appellant sent<br \/>\nPW.2 out of the factory on the pretext of buying some meat and<br \/>\nafter some of the workmen who were present had left, he caught<br \/>\nhold of the prosecutrix, took her to the first floor of the factory and<br \/>\nthen committed rape upon her and threatened that in case she<br \/>\nreported the matter to anybody she would be dealt with. PW.2<br \/>\nreturned a short while later and she narrated the entire story to<br \/>\nhim. PW. 2, however, told the appellant that whatever had<br \/>\nhappened was to be forgotten and that bygones were to be<br \/>\nbygones but he nevertheless took the appellant to the police<br \/>\nstation accompanied by PW-1 and their children and lodged the<br \/>\nFIR against the appellant. The appellant was also arrested in the<br \/>\npolice station at that very time and in due course was sent up for<br \/>\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In order to support its case the prosecution examined PW.1<br \/>\nthe prosecutrix; PW.2, Dinesh Chand Mishra, her husband; PW.9<br \/>\nDr. Charu Lata who had examined the prosecutrix but had found<br \/>\nno evidence of rape or any injury on her person and PW.10 Dr. R.<br \/>\nDyal, who had medically examined the appellant and opined that<br \/>\nthere was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing<br \/>\nsexual intercourse. Dr. Charu Lata also took the vaginal swabs of<br \/>\nthe prosecutrix and removed the salwar that she was wearing at<br \/>\nthat time and sent both these articles for examination to the FSL.<br \/>\nThe report of the Laboratory revealed the presence of semen on<br \/>\nthe vaginal swabs as well as on the salwar.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The trial Court while commenting on the evidence of PW.1 and<br \/>\nPW.2 observed that it would be difficult to believe that any self-<br \/>\nrespecting woman or her husband would come forward to make a<br \/>\nhumiliating statement against her honour and that, in such a<br \/>\nsituation, her statement alleging rape was to be accepted more<br \/>\nparticularly as there was no discrepancy of the nature that could<br \/>\nbe fatal to the prosecution&#8217;s case. Accepting the aforesaid<br \/>\nevidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as<br \/>\nalready mentioned above. The judgment of the trial Court was<br \/>\naffirmed by the High Court in appeal. The matter is before us at the<br \/>\ninstance of the accused by way of special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>   Mr. Bagga, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant has,<br \/>\nfirst and foremost, pointed out that the story projected by the<br \/>\nprosecution was on the face unacceptable, in the light of the fact<br \/>\nthat PW.1 had narrated the entire story to PW.2, her husband, but<br \/>\nthey had still managed to lure the appellant to the police station<br \/>\nand had handed him over to the police. He has submitted that this<br \/>\nstory did not fit in with normal human conduct so as to inspire<br \/>\nconfidence in the prosecution story. He has further pointed out that<br \/>\nsome corroboration for the ocular account could have been found<br \/>\nfrom the medical evidence but this too was uncertain as Dr. Charu<br \/>\nLata PW.9 had deposed that there was no evidence to suggest the<br \/>\ncommission of rape. He has also submitted that as per the<br \/>\nprosecution story itself there were at least two persons present in<br \/>\nthe factory premises at the time of the commission of the rape and<br \/>\n(though as per the statement of the investigating officer) their<br \/>\nstatements had been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.,<br \/>\nthey had not been produced in evidence. He has accordingly<br \/>\npointed out that the defence story projected by DW.1 Mohd. Zaki,<br \/>\nthe owner of the factory premises, that no amount was due<br \/>\ntowards PW.2, infact knocked out the foundations of the<br \/>\nprosecution story.\n<\/p>\n<p>   The learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that<br \/>\nthe courts below had found, on a minute appreciation of the<br \/>\nevidence, that the statements of PW.1 and PW2 had to be<br \/>\naccepted and merely because the medical examination was<br \/>\nindeterminate and did not reveal anything categoric in favour of the<br \/>\nprosecution, was no reason to disbelieve their statements, more<br \/>\nparticularly as semen stains had been found on the swabs and the<br \/>\nsalwar.\n<\/p>\n<p>   It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix<br \/>\nmust be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this<br \/>\nevidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and<br \/>\nbelies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which<br \/>\ngovern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of<br \/>\nthe opinion that story is indeed improbable. We note from the<br \/>\nevidence that PW.1 had narrated the sordid story to PW.2 on his<br \/>\nreturn from the market and he had very gracefully told the<br \/>\nappellant that everything was forgiven and forgotten but had<br \/>\nnevertheless lured him to the police station. If such statement had<br \/>\nindeed been made by the PW.2 there would have been no<br \/>\noccasion to even go to the police station. Assuming, however, that<br \/>\nthe appellant was naove and unaware that he was being lead<br \/>\ndeceitfully to the police station, once having reached there he<br \/>\ncould not have failed to realize his predicament as the trappings of<br \/>\na police station are familiar and distinctive. Even otherwise, the<br \/>\nevidence shows that the appellant had been running a kirana shop<br \/>\nin this area, and would, thus, have been aware of the location of<br \/>\nthe Police Station. In this view of the matter, some supporting<br \/>\nevidence was essential for the prosecution&#8217;s case. As already<br \/>\nmentioned above the medical evidence does not support the<br \/>\ncommission of rape. Moreover, the two or three persons who were<br \/>\npresent in the factory premises when the rape had been committed<br \/>\nwere not examined in Court as witnesses though their statements<br \/>\nhad been recorded during the course of the investigation. In this<br \/>\nbackground, merely because the vaginal swabs and the salwar<br \/>\nhad semen stains thereon would, at best, be evidence of the<br \/>\ncommission of sexual intercourse but not of rape. Significantly<br \/>\nalso, the semen found was not co-related to the appellant as his<br \/>\nblood samples had not been taken. In this background the<br \/>\nevidence of the defence witness, Mohd. Zaki becomes very<br \/>\nrelevant. This witness testified that there was no occasion for<br \/>\nPW.2 to have come to the factory as no payment was due to him<br \/>\non any account. The courts below were to our mind remiss in<br \/>\nholding that as no written accounts had been maintained by Mohd.<br \/>\nZaki and no receipt relating to any earlier payment to PW.2 had<br \/>\nbeen produced by him, his testimony was not acceptable, the more<br \/>\nso, as the factory was a small one and Mohd. Zaki was a petty<br \/>\nfactory owner.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We also see from the orders passed by this Court from time to<br \/>\ntime and particularly the Order of 25th October, 2004 that the<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant had pointed out that though the appellant<br \/>\nhad been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of seven years, he<br \/>\nhad already exceeded that period but was still in custody and he<br \/>\nwas accordingly bailed out after verifying this fact on 16th<br \/>\nNovember 2004. In normal circumstances we would not have<br \/>\npassed a detailed order in this background but as an allegation of<br \/>\nrape, is one of the most stigmatic of crimes, it calls for intervention<br \/>\nat any stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Before ending we must record our appreciation of Mr. Bagga&#8217;s<br \/>\nefforts.\n<\/p>\n<p>We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial<br \/>\nCourt and the High Court and order the appellant&#8217;s acquittal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Aftab Alam [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 80 TAMEEZUDDIN @ TAMMU v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No.1289 of 2004) AUGUST 26, 2009 [Harjit singh bedi and Aftab Alam, JJ.] The following Order [&hellip;]<\/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-148494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-07T04:45:02+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T04:45:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1443,\"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\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T04:45:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-07T04:45:02+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T04:45:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009"},"wordCount":1443,"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\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009","name":"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T04:45:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tameezuddin-tammu-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 26 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/148494","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=148494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}