{"id":152068,"date":"2010-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-10T06:40:24","modified_gmt":"2018-05-10T01:10:24","slug":"state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/125920\/2003\t 19\/ 19\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1259 of 2003\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1168 of 2005\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSONU\n@ GAJENDRASINH DASHRATHSINH SISODIYA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDEVANG VYAS ADDL. P.P. for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR BK OZA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
Both
\nthese Criminal Appeals arise out of judgment and order rendered by
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Modasa on
\n5.7.2003 in Sessions Case No.94 of 2002 whereby the learned trial
\nJudge was pleased to record conviction of original accused, Sonu
\nalias Gajendrasinh Dashrathsinh Sisodiya, who is appellant in
\nCriminal Appeal No.1168 of 2005 and respondent in Criminal Appeal
\nNo.1259 of 2003 for commission of offences punishable under Sections
\n304 Part I, 435, 404 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for
\nshort) and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of
\nRs.500\/- and i.d., S.I. for one month for the offence punishable
\nunder Section 304 Part I IPC; R.I. for six months and fine of
\nRs.500\/- and i.d., S.I. for one month for the offence punishable
\nunder Section 435 IPC; R.I. for six months and fine of RS.500 and
\ni.d., S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 404
\nIPC and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500 and i.d., S.I. for one
\nmonth for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and the
\nsubstantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run
\nconcurrently.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nprosecution case as unfolded during the course of trial is that on or
\nabout 8.6.2002 accused Sonu alias Gajendrasinh Dashrathsinh Sisodiya
\nwas performing his duty as cleaner in truck No.HR 38 G 7348 and
\ndeceased Abdulgani Shaikh was the driver of the truck. It is alleged
\nthat both the accused and deceased driver Abdulgani belonged to
\nGaziabad and the truck was owned by one Sunit Yashpal Diwan. On
\n2.6.2002 the deceased driver Abdulgani along with cleaner, accused
\nSonu alias Gajendrasinh Dashrathsinh Sisodiya and one second driver
\nSubhanali left Gaziabad for Mumbai carrying goods in the truck. On
\n4.6.2002 they reached Mumbai and on 6.6.2002 they left Mumbai for
\ncoming to Delhi carrying oil barrels in the truck. It is the case of
\nprosecution that when the drivers were at Mumbai some dispute took
\nplace and the accused quarrelled with both the drivers i.e., deceased
\ndriver Abdulgani and the second driver Subhanali. On account of the
\nquarrel the second driver Subhanali did not join them and he
\ncontinued to stay at Mumbai. During the night hours of 7.6.2002 the
\ntruck driven by deceased Abdulgani wherein the accused was travelling
\nin capacity as cleaner reached near Isrol village on
\nModasa-Shyamalaji Road. On account of some mechanical defect the
\ntruck was required to be stopped. It is the prosecution case that
\nduring night hours the deceased driver Abdulgani intended to cause
\nunnatural act with the accused Sonu. It is further case of the
\nprosecution that at the time of the incident deceased driver
\nAbdulgani had cash amount of Rs.18,000\/- With a view to rob the
\namount and keeping grudge in mind, the accused allegedly inflicted a
\nblow with tommy on the head of the deceased who at the relevant time
\nwas sleeping on the roof top of a container in the truck. The accused
\nthereafter set the truck to fire and took the cash amount from the
\ntruck and ran away. During early morning of 8.6.2002 it was noticed
\nthat the truck was on fire and therefore police was called who in
\nturn called fire brigade. The fire was extinguished and it was found
\nthat the dead body of deceased driver Abdulgani was lying on the roof
\ntop of a container in the truck. The contact number of the owner of
\nthe truck was painted on the body of the truck and the owner of the
\ntruck i.e., P.W.14, Sunit Yashpal Diwan, was contacted. Upon receipt
\nof the information Sunit Yashpal Diwan reached the place of the
\nincident. The incident was reported to Modasa Rural Police Station by
\nPSI Mr.Dixit and his FIR was registered. During the course of
\ninvestigation, statements of material witnesses were recored. On
\n13.6.2002 the accused came to be arrested. The accused in presence of
\npanchas and police officers discovered the muddamal weapon tommy and
\nfrom his possession cash amount to the tune of Rs.8,700\/-, one shirt
\nand a pair of shoes were recovered. After collecting required
\nmaterial for the purpose of lodgment of charge sheet the charge sheet
\ncame to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Modasa for commission
\nof offences punishable under Sections 302, 435, 404 and 201 IPC.
\nSince the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
\nthe learned JMFC, Modasa committed the case to the Court of Sessions
\nat Modasa which was registered as Sessions Case No.94 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nlearned trial Judge framed charge against the accused at Ex.1 for the
\ncommission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 435, 404 and
\n201 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
\ntried and thereupon the prosecution examined witnesses and adduced
\noral as well as documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded
\nits oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further statement of the
\naccused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.PC’
\nfor short) and the accused in his further statement denied generally
\nall the incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and
\nstated that he was falsely implicated in this case and that the cash
\namount and the cloth seized from him belonged to his father.\n<\/p>\n
The
\ntrial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and the
\nsubmissions made on behalf of both the sides ultimately came to the
\nconclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the
\ninvolvement of the accused in the incident. However, the trial Court
\nrecorded acquittal of the accused for the offence of murder
\npunishable under Section 302 IPC but recorded his conviction for the
\noffence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under
\nSection 304 Part I IPC together with other offences punishable under
\nSections 435, 404 and 201 of IPC and awarded sentence as herein above
\nreferred to in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Feeling
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal recorded by
\nthe trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the
\nState of Gujarat preferred Criminal Appeal No.1259 of 2003 under
\nsection 378 (1)(3) of the Cr.P.C. The accused in turn challenged his
\nconviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No.1168 of 2005 under
\nSection 374 of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\nlearned advocate Mr. B.K. Oza for the original accused (appellant in
\nCriminal Appeal No.1168 of 2005 and respondent in Criminal Appeal
\nNo.1259 of 2003) and learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Devang Vyas for the State
\nof Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\nadvocate Mr. Oza for the accused submitted that the prosecution case
\nrests solely upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied
\nupon by the trial Court are not such which can be considered to be
\nsufficient for the purpose of recording the conviction of the
\naccused. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court
\ncannot be said to have been duly proved. The theory of the deceased
\nhaving last seen together with the accused cannot be accepted for the
\nsimple reason that when the witnesses reached the place of the
\nincident the accused was not found there in the truck. That the
\nprosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of
\ntommy and cash amount from the accused. Therefore it is submitted
\nthat the appeal preferred by the accused be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
About
\nthe State appeal, learned advocate Mr. Oza submitted that though the
\naccused deserves acquittal, so far as the appeal preferred by the
\nState of Gujarat is concerned, the trial Court rightly came to the
\nconclusion that the offence which can be said to have been
\nconstituted in this case is not murder but culpable homicide not
\namounting to murder. The medical evidence reveals that this is a case
\nof solitary blow. The accused had ample opportunity to inflict more
\nblows. If the prosecution evidence as it is considered the deceased
\ndriver demanded unnatural act which provided grave and sudden
\nprovocation to the accused. It is further submitted that the accused
\nhad already served out the sentence and he is not now in jail.
\nTherefore it is submitted that the appeal preferred by the State of
\nGujarat under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Per
\ncontra, the learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Vyas vehemently opposed the appeal
\npreferred by the accused and submitted that the trial Court has
\nrightly recorded conviction of the accused as the prosecution has
\nsuccessfully proved chain of circumstantial evidence. The trial Court
\nhas rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The circumstances are
\nstrong enough to record the conviction of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nlearned Addl.P.P. for the State of Gujarat submitted that however the
\ntrial Court has erred in recording acquittal of the accused of the
\noffence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The medical
\nevidence reveals that though there was a solitary injury the injury
\nwas on vital part of the body i,.e., head and that brain matter had
\ncome out from the wound. That the medical evidence suggests that the
\ninjury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
\nTherefore it is submitted that the trial Court should have recorded
\nthe conviction of the accused for the offence of murder punishable
\nunder Section 302 IPC. Ultimately it is submitted that the appeal
\npreferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
\nmay be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
We
\nhave examined the record and proceedings in context with the
\nsubmissions made by the rival sides.\n<\/p>\n
After
\nappreciating and reanalysing the evidence on record it clearly
\ntranspires that the prosecution case solely rests upon the
\ncircumstantial evidence. It further transpires that the circumstances
\nrelied upon by the prosecution are (i) the accused having been last
\nseen together in the company of the deceased, (ii) soon after the
\nincident the accused who was serving in the truck as cleaner left the
\ntruck and was absconding, (iii) the accused came to be apprehended on
\n13.6.2002 and in presence of panchas the accused discovered the
\nmuddamal weapon tommy which was used in commission of the offence and
\nthat from the search of his person the amount of booty i.e., cash
\namount of Rs.8,700\/- came to be seized and (iv) strong motive
\navailable to the accused to cause death of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
We
\nhave gone through the evidence of all 19 witnesses examined by the
\nprosecution but it transpires that the evidence of P.W.14, Sunit
\nYashpal Diwan recorded at Ex.34, bears importance. He is the owner of
\nthe truck. Considering his evidence it clearly transpires that the
\ntruck bearing No.HR 38 G 7348 belonged to him and in the truck
\ndeceased Abdulgani was employed as a driver and the accused Sonu was
\nemployed as cleaner. According to his evidence, on 2.6.2002 both the
\ndeceased driver Abdulgani and the cleaner accused Sonu and the second
\ndriver Subhanali left Gaziabad for Mumbai carrying goods in the
\ntruck. On 4.6.2002 they reached Mumbai and the goods were unloaded
\nfrom the truck. According to his version, he received a telephone
\ncall from his driver Abdulgani from Mumbai that he had received
\nRs.18,000\/- by way of freight charges. However, he informed that the
\ncleaner accused Sonu was quarrelling with him and the second driver
\nSubhanali. Thereafter because of the quarrel the second driver
\nSubhanali stayed in Mumbai but on 6.6.2002 carrying oil barrels in
\nthe truck, driver Abdulgani and the accused left Mumbai for Gaziabad.
\nIt has come in evidence that during the night falling between
\n7.6.2002 and 8.6.2002 when the truck reached near village Isrol on
\nModasa-Shyamalaji Road, because of some mechanical defect the truck
\nwas parked on the road.\n<\/p>\n
It
\nis further pertinent to note that considering the evidence of the son
\nof deceased driver Abdulgani i.e., P.W.18, Shahalam Abdulgani, he
\ndeposed that the deceased was his father and was employed as driver
\nin the truck. According to his evidence, from Mumbai his deceased
\nfather along with the accused Sonu left for Gaziabad.\n<\/p>\n
Thus
\nconsidering the evidence of the owner of the truck i.e., P.W.14,
\nSunit Yashpal Diwan and the son of deceased i.e., P.W.18, Shahalam
\nAbdulgani it is clear that the deceased was employed as driver and
\naccused was employed as cleaner in the truck owned by Sunit Yashpal
\nDiwan. It has further become clear that from Mumbai they both left
\nfor Gaziabad in the truck. Under such circumstances, we are of the
\nconsidered opinion that the trial Court rightly came to the
\nconclusion that it was the accused who accompanied the deceased at
\nthe time when the incident occurred. It is further pertinent to note
\nthat the evidence further reveals that soon after the incident the
\naccused was not found near the truck. The truck was set to fire by
\nhim. He was found absconding and he could be arrested only after
\nabout a week on 13.6.2002. It is further pertinent to note that in
\nthe further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he
\nnowhere explains his absconding, or nowhere explains as to how the
\nincident took place. It is further pertinent to note that considering
\nSection 106 of the Evidence Act, it is clearly provided that when any
\nfact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
\nproving that fact is upon him. In the instant case, even in further
\nstatement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., no explanation
\nis forthcoming from the part of the accused about the incident or
\nabout his absconding.\n<\/p>\n
Evaluating
\nthe evidence on record and especially considering the evidence of the
\nowner of the truck i.e,. Sunit Yashpal Diwan, it clearly transpires
\nthat before leaving Mumbai the accused had quarrelled with the
\ndeceased. Moreover, the accused was knowing that the deceased had
\nreceived a sum of Rs.18,000\/- by way of freight charges of the truck.
\nBecause of the quarrel the second driver i.e., Subhanali did not
\nthink it fit to travel in the truck and he continued to stay in
\nMumbai. When such is the situation we are of the considered opinion
\nthat the prosecution has proved the motive in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
However,
\nthe prosecution attempted to adduce the evidence regarding alleged
\nextra judicial confession made by the accused before the owner of the
\ntruck i.e., P.W.14, Sunit Yashpal Diwan. On this count if the
\nevidence of P.W.14, Sunit Yashpal Diwan is appreciated, it transpires
\nthat the extra judicial confession was made by the accused in the
\npolice station in presence of police officers. When such is the
\nsituation it cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully
\nproved the circumstance i.e., the extra judicial confession allegedly
\nmade by the accused before the owner of the truck. Needless to say
\nthat the evidence in the form of extra judicial confession is
\notherwise a very weak evidence. Even if in this case the evidence
\nregarding extra judicial confession is not at all taken into
\nconsideration, as stated above, the prosecution has adduced cogent
\nand convincing evidence regarding the accused having been last seen
\ntogether in the company of the deceased, about his act of absconding
\nsoon after the incident and also about the strong motive available to
\nthe accused to kill the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover,
\nthe evidence reveals that in presence of panch P.W.3, Bharatkumar
\nMohanbhai, the accused discovered the muddamal weapon, tommy, vide
\ndiscovery panchnama Ex.11. Even the Investigating Officer, P.W.19,
\nPSI Dixit supports this part of the evidence. Moreover, the evidence
\nfurther reveals that from the possession of the accused an amount of
\nRs.8,700\/- came to be recovered. No satisfactory explanation is
\nforthcoming about the cash amount recovered from the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Examining
\nthe medical evidence on record and especially the evidence of P.W.6,
\nDr. Patel it clearly transpires that according to his evidence the
\nsolitary injury found on the left side of the head of the deceased
\nwas possible by the muddamal weapon tommy discovered by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Thus
\nwe are of the considered opinion that the prosecution successfully
\nproved the chain of circumstantial evidence. The chain is well
\nestablished. The trial Court therefore rightly recorded the
\nconviction of the accused and his involvement in the incident.\n<\/p>\n
However,
\nLearned Addl. P.P. Mr. Vyas for the State of Gujarat submitted That
\nthe trial Court has erred in recording the acquittal of the accused
\nfor the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is
\nsubmitted that the medical evidence reveals that though the accused
\ninflicted solitary blow on the head of the deceased, at the time of
\nthe incident the deceased was sleeping and the injury on head
\nsustained by the deceased was very serious as brain matter had come
\nout from the wound. Therefore it is submitted that the appeal
\npreferred by the State of Gujarat be allowed and the conviction of
\nthe accused may be recorded for the offence of murder punishable
\nunder Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
We
\nhave given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by
\nthe learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Vyas. Examining medical evidence on record
\nit becomes clear that the deceased sustained solitary injury above
\nthe left eye on frontal region on his head. The injury resulted into
\nfracture of frontal bone and at the time of post mortem brain matter
\nwas found in the wound. The cause of death is opined to be shock due
\nto intra-cranial injury.\n<\/p>\n
We
\nhave carefully examined the evidence of medical officer Dr. Patel and
\npost mortem report Ex.20. Appreciating the evidence on record, the
\ntrial Court came to the conclusion that the offence which can be said
\nto have been constituted is culpable homicide not amounting to murder
\nand not murder. There is no dispute that the deceased sustained a
\nsolitary blow. It has come in evidence that at the time of the
\nincident except the deceased and the accused, nobody was present.
\nNothing emerges from record that the deceased offered any resistance.
\nIn such circumstances there was sufficient opportunity to the accused
\nto inflict more blows. According to the prosecution case the accused
\ninflicted only solitary blow with tommy on the person of the deceased
\nand thereafter he left the truck. The subsequent act of setting the
\ntruck to fire cannot be linked with the cause of death because there
\nis no medical evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the
\ndeceased had sustained any burn injuries. We have examined the
\njudgment rendered by the trial Court and the trial Court in paragraph
\n30 of the judgment elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter
\nand then came to the conclusion that considering the medical evidence
\non record and the facts and the circumstances under which the
\nincident took place, the offence which can be said to have been
\nconstituted is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable
\nunder Section 304 Part I IPC and not murder punishable under Section
\n302 IPC. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment
\nrendered by the trial Court while recording acquittal of the accused
\nfor the offence of murder and while recording conviction of the
\naccused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. We
\ndo not find any need to interfere with the findings arrived at by the
\ntrial Court and the ultimate conclusion in the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nthe result, we are of the considered opinion that both the appeals
\nare devoid of any merits and deserve dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
For
\nthe foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.1259 of 2003 and Criminal
\nAppeal No.1168 of 2005 stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Ravi
\nR. Tripathi, J.)<\/p>\n
(J.C.\n<\/p>\n
Upadhyaya, J.)<\/p>\n
…\n<\/p>\n
(karan)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/125920\/2003 19\/ 19 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1259 of 2003 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1168 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI HONOURABLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Sonu on 12 January, 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\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-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=\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-10T01:10:24+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T01:10:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3251,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T01:10:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 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":"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 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\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-10T01:10:24+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T01:10:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010"},"wordCount":3251,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010","name":"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T01:10:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sonu-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Sonu on 12 January, 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\/152068","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=152068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}