{"id":149267,"date":"1974-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974"},"modified":"2017-06-21T03:13:49","modified_gmt":"2017-06-20T21:43:49","slug":"hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974","title":{"rendered":"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1936, \t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 652<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHALLU AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/03\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1936\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 652\n 1974 SCC  (4) 300\n CITATOR INFO :\n E&amp;D\t    1992 SC 214\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal trial--Case of rioting and murder--Correct approach\nto  evidence--FIR if should be given by one having  personal\nknowledge of the incident.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants,  along\t with  others,\twere  charged\twith\noffences  arising  out of the murder of\t two  persons.\t The\ntrial\tcourt  assessed\t the  evidence\ton   the   following\nprinciples, namely : (a) in rioting cases discrepancies\t are\nbound to occur in the evidence but the duty of the court  is\nto have regard to the broad probabilities of the case;(b) in\na  factious village independent witnesses are  unwilling  to\ncome  forward and therefore the testimony of  eye  witnesses\nwho  may be interested in the deceased cannot  be  discarded\nmerely\tfor that reason, provided of course the presence  of\nthe  witnesses\tis  proved; and (c)  the  First\t Information\nReport does not constitute substantive evidence in the\tcase\nand  the mere circumstance that there are certain  omissions\nin it will not justify the case being disbelieved; and\tgave\nweighty\t reasons for holding that the 'guilt of the  accused\nwas not proved beyond reasonable doubt.\t In appeal, the High\nCourt,\twhile  acquitting others, convicted  the  appellants\nunder s.  302 read with s. 149 I.P.C.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : The High Court ought not to have interfered with\t the\norder  of acquittal ven if there Were two possible views  of\nthe evidence. [654D-E]\n(a) The High Court wrongly refused to attach any  importance\nto  the circumstance that the names of the  appellants\twere\nnot  mentioned\tin the very first report to the\t police\t and\nthat a totally different group of persons were mentioned  as\nthe assailants.\t The High Court held that that report  could\nnot be treated as the First Information Report under s.\t 154\nCr.   P.C., because, the person who gave the Report  had  no\npersonal  knowledge  of the incident.. But s. 154  does\t not\nrequire\t that the Report must be given by a person  who\t has\npersonal knowledge of the incident reported.  It only speaks\nof an information relating to the commission of a cognizable\noffence\t given to an officer in-charge of a police  station.\n[654H-655C]\n(b) Another report, given by the Kotwal of the village,\t was\ntreated\t by the High, Courtas the First lnformation  Report.\nBut  this  report.wholly  destroys  the\t prosecution   case,\nbecause,  while\t the case of the prosecution  was  that\t the\nincident happened on the afternoon of the previous day,\t the\nKotwal\tstated\tin his report that the\tincident  had  taken\nplace during the early hours of the day on which he gave the\nreport. [655E-G]\n(c) In that Report also the names of the assailants were not\nmentioned.   The  inference arising from the fact  that\t the\nname of an accused is not mentioned in the First Information\nReport\tmust  vary  from case to case; but  the\t High  Court\nwholly ignored the fact that even the Kotwal of the  village\nhad  not come to know the names of the assailants though  20\nhours  had  elapsed  after  the\t incident  had\ttaken  place\naccording to the prosecution. [655G-H]\n(d)  The High Court refused to attach any importance to\t the\ndiscrepancies between the medical evidence and the  evidence\nof  the eye witnesses that the deceased were  attacked\twith\nspears\tand axes, on the ground that the witnesses  had\t not\nstated that 'the miscreants dealt axe blows from the  sharp-\nside  or  used the spears as a piercing weapon'.   The\tHigh\nCourt  explained the absence of incised or punctured  wounds\nby observing, without any basis, that the accused might have\nused the blunt side. [656C-E]\n(e)  It\t is generally not easy to find\twitnesses  on  whose\ntestimony  implicit  reliance can be placed.  It  is  always\nadvisable to test the evidence of witnesses on the anvil\n653\nof  'objective\tcircumstances  of the case.   But  the\tHigh\nCourt, in the present case, accepted the evidence of the two\nalleged\t eye-witnesses\tas  implicitly\treliable,without  so\ntesting\t their\tevidence.   They claimed to  have  seen\t the\nincident in the afternoon, but if the incident took place at\nnight,\tthe  whole superstructure of the  prosecution  must'\nfall. (656A,F-G)\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  :  Criminal\tAppeal,\t No.<br \/>\n142 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated<br \/>\nthe  27th  March, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High  Court  at<br \/>\nJabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1967.<br \/>\nD. Mookherjea, S,K.  Bagga, S. Bagga and Yash Bagga, for the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ram  Pan  wani,\t H. S. Parihar and I.  N.  Shroff   for\t the<br \/>\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nCHANDRACHUD,  J.  Eighteen  persons were put  up  for  trial<br \/>\nbefore\tthe First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg  (M.\t P.)<br \/>\nfor offences arising out of the murder of two persons Jagdeo<br \/>\nand  Padum.   The learned Judge acquitted them\tof  all\t the<br \/>\ncharges\t but  that order was partly set aside  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Madhya Pradesh which confirmed the  acquittal  of<br \/>\neight persons and convicted the remaining ten under  section<br \/>\n302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code.  This appeal by<br \/>\nspecial\t leave is directed against the judgment of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  under which a sentence of life imprisonment has\tbeen<br \/>\nimposed on the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>The case of the prosecution is that on the&#8217; afternoon of May<br \/>\n9, 1966 a group of about 18 persons including the appellants<br \/>\ndragged\t Jagdeo\t and Padum. from their houses  and  attacked<br \/>\nthem with lathis, spears and axes.  In 1965 Jagdeo and Padum<br \/>\nwere  prosecuted  along\t with 2 others\tfor  committing\t the<br \/>\nmurder of one Daulatram, the Sarpanch of the village.\tThat<br \/>\ncase  ended in acquittal and it is alleged that\t Jagdeo\t and<br \/>\nPadum  were  done  to  death  by  the  appellants  who\tfelt<br \/>\nespecially aggrieved by the murder of the Sarpanch.<br \/>\nSince  the High Court has set aside the order  of  acquittal<br \/>\npassed by the Sessions Court it is of primary importance  to<br \/>\nappreciate and understand the approach of the Sessions Court<br \/>\nto  the\t evidence in the case and its  conclusions  thereon.<br \/>\nThese. briefly, are the structural hallmarks of the Sessions<br \/>\nCourt&#8217;s\t judgment:  (1)In rioting  cases  discrepancies\t are<br \/>\nbound to occur in the. evidence but the duty of the court is<br \/>\nto  have regard to the broad probabilities of the case;\t (2)<br \/>\nIn a factious village independent witnesses are unwilling to<br \/>\ncome  forward and therefore the testimony  of  eye-witnesses<br \/>\nwho  are  interested  in the deceased  cannot  be  discarded<br \/>\nmerely for the reason that they are so interested,  provided<br \/>\nofcourse  the presence of the witnesses is proved;  (3)\t The<br \/>\nFirst  Information  Report does not  constitute\t substantive<br \/>\nevidence  in the case and the mere circumstance\t that  there<br \/>\nare certain omissions in it will not justify the case  being<br \/>\ndisbelieved.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">654<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Applying these broad principles the Sessions Court  rejected<br \/>\nthe evidence of the eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused.<br \/>\nIn   doing   this  the\tcourt  was   influenced\t  by   these<br \/>\ncircumstances:\t(1)  There weft\t material  discrepancies  as<br \/>\nregards the place where Jagdeo was as aulted The police\t had<br \/>\ntaken  scratchings from the walls of Jagdeo&#8217;s house but\t did<br \/>\nnot  send  them to the Chemical\t Analyser  for\tascertaining<br \/>\nwhether they bore stains of blood; (2) The widows of  Jadgeo<br \/>\nand  Padum  had stated that the two men were  attacked\twith<br \/>\nspears and axes but according to the medical evidence  there<br \/>\nwere  neither  incised\tnor punctured  wounds  on  the\tdead<br \/>\nbodies; (3) As many as three different Reports Were given to<br \/>\nthe  police station on the morning of the day following\t the<br \/>\nday of the incident but the names of the appellants were not<br \/>\nmentioned  in any one of them; (4) In one of  those  Reports<br \/>\nthe  incident was stated to have happened at  night  whereas<br \/>\nthe case of the prosecution is that the incident happened in<br \/>\nbroad  daylight-at  about  I  p. m. and\t (5)  There  was  no<br \/>\nreliable  evidence showing that the accused  had  sufficient<br \/>\nmotive to commit the murder.\n<\/p>\n<p>These,\tin our opinion, are weighty reasons on the  strength<br \/>\nof which the learned Sessions Judge was reasonably ;entitled<br \/>\nto  come  to  the conclusion that  the\tcharge\tagainst\t the<br \/>\naccused was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  At worst,<br \/>\nit  may\t perhaps be possible to say that two  views  of\t the<br \/>\nevidence  were reasonably possible.  It is well\t established<br \/>\nthat  in  such\tcircumstances the High Court  ought  not  to<br \/>\ninterfere with the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  will  demonstrate  in  reference  to  a  few   important<br \/>\ncircumstances as to why the High Court was not justified  in<br \/>\ninterfering  with the order of acquittal.  The incident\t is,<br \/>\nalleged to have taken place at about I\tp.m on May,  9, 1966<br \/>\nbut  it was not until the next morning that any one  in\t the<br \/>\nvillage\t thought it necessary to report the incident to\t the<br \/>\npolice.\t  The first person who at all contacted\t the  police<br \/>\nafter the incident was Tibhu, the son of one of the murdered<br \/>\npersons, Jagdeo.  Tibhu went to the Rancharia Police Station<br \/>\nat  8-15 a. m. on&#8217; the 10th and told the police that on\t the<br \/>\nprevious afternoon Jagdeo and Padum were murdered.  In\tthat<br \/>\nreport\tTibhu mentioned the names of as many as\t 10  persons<br \/>\nwho  according\tto him had participated in the\tassault\t but<br \/>\nnone  of  the  18 accused found a place in  that  long\tlist<br \/>\nexcept perhaps &#8220;Bentha Satnami&#8221; the reference to whom may by<br \/>\na process of some stretching be construed as a reference  to<br \/>\none of the accused.  Tibhu made an interesting disclosure in<br \/>\nhis  evidence  that he had gone to the\tpolice\tfor  lodging<br \/>\ninformation about an altogether different incident and after<br \/>\nhaving lodged that information he was told by a woman called<br \/>\nDharmin\t that the eighteen accused had committed the  murder<br \/>\nof Jagdeo and Padum. Yet it is sarprising-that not only\t did<br \/>\nhe  not\t mention the names of the present  &#8216;accused  but  he<br \/>\nmentioned  the\tnames of an altogether different   group  of<br \/>\npersons.   This\t is in regard to  the  earliest\t information<br \/>\ngiven to the police in point of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Report  given  by Tibhu thus  suffers  from  a  serious<br \/>\ninfirmity  and\tthe Sessions Court was justified  in  citing<br \/>\nthat infirmity as one of tile reas-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">655<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ons  leading to the acquittal of the appellants.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  however\trefused\t to attach  any\t importance  to\t the<br \/>\ncircumstance  that  the\t names of the  appellants  were\t not<br \/>\nmentioned  in  the Report on the ground that though  it\t was<br \/>\nearlist\t in  point of time it could not be  treated  as\t the<br \/>\nFirst\tInformation  Report  udder  section  154,   Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  Code\t as Tibhu had no personal knowledge  of\t the<br \/>\nincident  and the Report was based on hearsay evidence.\t  In<br \/>\nthis view the High Court clearly erred for section l54\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  require that the Report must be given by a\t person\t who<br \/>\nhas  personal  knowledge  of  the  incident  reported.\t The<br \/>\nsection speaks of an information relating to the  commission<br \/>\nof  a cognizable offence given to an officer in charge of  a<br \/>\npolice station.\t Tibhu had given such information and it was<br \/>\nin  consequence of that information that  the  investigation<br \/>\nhad commenced.\n<\/p>\n<p>At  about 11-45 a. m. one Dharamdas who was examined in\t the<br \/>\ncase as an eye-witness went to the police station and lodged<br \/>\ninformation about a totally different incident stating\tthat<br \/>\na  boy\twhose  name he did not know had beaten\thim  with  a<br \/>\nlathi.\t This  of  course  cannot be  regarded\tas  a  first<br \/>\ninformation  report of the offence in question but the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt overlooked that if Dharamdas was an eye witness and if<br \/>\nhe did go to the police station quite a few horrs after\t the<br \/>\nincident  it  was  strange  that he did\t not  refer  to\t the<br \/>\nincident at all.  Dharamadas wriggled out of an inconvenient<br \/>\nsituation  by saying that as Tibhu had already reported\t the<br \/>\nincident to the police he himself did not think it necessary<br \/>\nto  do\tso.  The evidence of Dharmdas, we may  mention,\t has<br \/>\nbeen rejected by the trial court as well as the High Court.<br \/>\nThen  comes yet another Report made to the police  and\tthat<br \/>\nwas made by one Vishal Das who was the Kotwar of the village<br \/>\nin  between the two earlier Reports.  Vishal  Das&#8217;s  Report,<br \/>\nEx.  P-47, shows that he gave the information at the  police<br \/>\nstation\t at about 10 a. m. on the 10th.\t  This\tinformation,<br \/>\naccording  to  the High Court,must be treated as  the  First<br \/>\ninformation  Report  in the case.  This in our\topinion.  is<br \/>\nclearly\t erroneous.   But  apart from the  legality  of\t the<br \/>\nfinding\t recorded  by  the High Court  Vishat  Das&#8217;s  Report<br \/>\nalmost\twholly destroys the prosecution case.  The  case  of<br \/>\nthe prosecution is that the incident in question happened on<br \/>\nthe  afternoon of the 9th whereas Vishal Das stated  in\t his<br \/>\nReport that the incident had taken place on the night of the<br \/>\n10th,  meaning\tthereby\t in the early  hours  of  the  10th.<br \/>\nVishal\tDas also stated expressly-in his Report that he\t did<br \/>\nnot know as to who had assaulted Jagdeo and Padum.  The High<br \/>\nCourt  failed to give these circumstances their\t due  weight<br \/>\nand observed on the contrary that the fact that the names of<br \/>\nthe assailants were not mentioned by Vishal Das was not very<br \/>\nmaterial  as the assault was committed by. a large group  of<br \/>\n17 or 18 persons.  The inference arising from the fact\tthat<br \/>\nthe  names  of\tthe accused are not  mentioned\tin  a  First<br \/>\nInformation Report must vary from case to case but the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt wholly ignored that even the Kotwar of the village had<br \/>\nnot come to know the names of the assailants though 20 hours<br \/>\nhid  elapsed after the incident had taken place and  further<br \/>\nthat according to him the incident had taken place at night.<br \/>\nIt is obvious that if the incident had taken place at  night<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">656<\/span><br \/>\nwhole  &#8216;Superstructure of the prosecution Case&#8217;\t must  fall.<br \/>\nThe  eyewitnesses Musammat Dev Kunwar and Musammat  Mahatrin<br \/>\nclaim  in to hive seen the incident on the supposition\tthat<br \/>\nit happened, on the after-noon of the 9th.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court observed in its judgment that the trial court<br \/>\nwas &#8220;mainly influenced by the so-called discrepancies in the<br \/>\nthree  reports\tlodged with the police&#8221;.  We may  point\t out<br \/>\nthat  the  trial  court\t was  influenced  by  a\t variety  of<br \/>\nconsiderations\tand the discrepancies in the  three  Reports<br \/>\nare not by any standard &#8220;so-called&#8221;.  The discrepancies have<br \/>\na  fundamental\timportance  for they  tend  to\tfalsify\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  the eye-witnesses and show that  the  incident<br \/>\nhappened under cover of darkness and was in all\t probability<br \/>\nnot witnessed by anyone.\n<\/p>\n<p>The postmortem report prepared by Dr. N. L. Jain shows\tthat<br \/>\non  the\t body  of  Jagdeo were found  three  bruises  and  a<br \/>\nhematoma.   On the body of Padum were found  four  lacerated<br \/>\nwounds and two bruises.\t According to the eye-witnesse&#8217;s the<br \/>\ntwo men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but\tthat<br \/>\nclearly\t stands falsified by the medical evidence.  Not\t one<br \/>\nof  the\t injuries found on the person of Jagdeo.  and  Padum<br \/>\ncould  be  caused  by a spear or an  axe.   The\t High  Court<br \/>\nhowever\t refused to attach any importance to this aspect  of<br \/>\nthe matter by saying that the witnesses had not stated\tthat<br \/>\nthe  miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or\tused<br \/>\nthe  spear  as\ta High Court axes and  spears  may  piercing<br \/>\nweapon&#8221;.,  According  to the have been used from  the  blunt<br \/>\nside  and therefore the evidence of the eye-witnesses  could<br \/>\nsafely\tbe accepted.  We should have thought  that  normally<br \/>\nwhen  the witness says that an axe or a spear is used  there<br \/>\nis  no warrant for supposing that what the witness means  is<br \/>\nthat the blunt side of the Weapon was used.  If that be\t the<br \/>\nimplication  it is the duty of the prosecution to  obtain  a<br \/>\nclarification  from the witness as to whether a\t sharp-edged<br \/>\nor a piercing .instrument was used as blunt weapon.<br \/>\nThere  is only one more observation which we would  like  to<br \/>\nmake about the judgment of the High Court.  &#8216;The High  Court<br \/>\nhas  observed  in its judgment at more than one\t place\tthat<br \/>\nMusammat  Dev Kunwar and Musammat Mahatrin  were  &#8220;implicity<br \/>\nreliable&#8221;.   It is generally not easy to find  witnesses  on<br \/>\nwhose  testimony  implicit reliance can be  placed.   It  is<br \/>\nalways\tadvisable to test the evidence of witnesses  on\t the<br \/>\nanvil of objective circumstances in the case.  Not only\t did<br \/>\nthe  High Court not do that but by persuading itself to\t the<br \/>\n&#8216;view that the two eye-witnesses were implicitly reliable it<br \/>\ndenied to itself the benefit of a judicial consideration  of<br \/>\nthe infirmities to which we have briefly referred.<br \/>\nWe  therefore  allow this appeal, set aside  the  order\t of&#8217;<br \/>\nconviction and sentence passed by the High Court and  acquit<br \/>\nthe appellants.\t They shall be released forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V. P. S.\t\t       Appeal Allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">657<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1936, 1974 SCR (3) 652 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: HALLU AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/03\/1974 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH CITATION: 1974 [&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-149267","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>Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 - 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\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-20T21:43:49+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-20T21:43:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\"},\"wordCount\":2095,\"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\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\",\"name\":\"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-20T21:43:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 - 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\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-20T21:43:49+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974","datePublished":"1974-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-20T21:43:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974"},"wordCount":2095,"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\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974","name":"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-20T21:43:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hallu-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-march-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974"}]},{"@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\/149267","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=149267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}