{"id":1527,"date":"1997-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997"},"modified":"2016-04-28T09:48:10","modified_gmt":"2016-04-28T04:18:10","slug":"smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Nanavati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G. N. Ray, G. T. Nanavati<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT. RUKMA &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJALA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/08\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nG. N. RAY, G. T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nNANAVATI, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The widows\t of the\t three victims,\t who were alleged to<br \/>\nhave been  murdered by\trespondent Nos. 1 to 8 (Accused 1 to\n<\/p>\n<p>8), have  filed this appeal, by special leave of this Court,<br \/>\nagainst the  judgment and  order of  acquittal passed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court  of Rajasthan  (Jaipur Bench)  in B.\t B. Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal No.  444 of 1987. The State has not thought it fit to<br \/>\nfile appeal against the decision of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On account of a dispute regarding land there was enmity<br \/>\nbetween the  family of Anna Rawat of Village Masiniya in the<br \/>\nDistrict of  Ajmer with\t the family  of Accused N, 1. It was<br \/>\nthe prosecution case that because of the enmity Accused Nos.<br \/>\n1 to  8 assaulted  Anna Rawat,\this bother  Kana,  his\tsons<br \/>\nMadhu, Arjun,  Mohan and  Sua one Punna and Ratna while they<br \/>\nwere returning\tfrom their  fields to  the  village  in\t the<br \/>\nevening of  11.2.1986. They  were assaulted  while they were<br \/>\npassing through\t the Nalla situated near the field of Ganpat<br \/>\nChita. Vishnu (A-2) and Ratan (A-5) were armed with pharsis,<br \/>\nSardara (A-7)  was armed  with an  axe and others were armed<br \/>\nwith sticks.  Ratan  (A-5)  first  give\t a  blow  with\tthis<br \/>\n&#8216;pharsi&#8217; on  the head  of Anna\tand Vishnu (A-2) gave a blow<br \/>\nwith &#8216;pharsi&#8217;  on the waist of Anna. Ratna (A-5) then gave a<br \/>\nblow with  &#8216;pharsi&#8217; on\tthe head of Kana. Sardara (A-7) gave<br \/>\nan axe\tblow on\t the hand of Kana Vishnu (A-2) gave a pharsi<br \/>\nblow on\t the head  of  Madhu.  Thereafter  all\tthe  accused<br \/>\nstarted beating other members of Anna&#8217;s party. On account of<br \/>\nthe injuries  caused to them Anna and Kana died on the spot.<br \/>\nMadu died  while he  was being\ttaken to  the hospital. As a<br \/>\nresult of  the blows given by the accused, Sua (PW-1), Mohan<br \/>\n(PW-2), Arjun (PW-7), Punna (PW-8) and Ratna (PW-9) received<br \/>\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In respect of this very incident vishnu (A-2) lodged an<br \/>\noral report  with the police at Kishanganj Police Station at<br \/>\nabout 9.00  P.M. In pursuance of that report Hardayal Singh,<br \/>\nwho was\t incharge of  that Police  Station, went  to Village<br \/>\nMasiniya. He  recorded the  complaint of Sua (PW-1) at about<br \/>\n11.00 P.M. The police first filed a charge sheet against A-1<br \/>\nto A-8\tbut after  making further  investigation they  filed<br \/>\nanother charge\tsheet against  six  more  persons.  All\t the<br \/>\nfourteen accused  were committed  to the  court of Sessions.<br \/>\nThe learned  Sessions Judge  discharged the  accused against<br \/>\nwhom charge  sheet was\tfiled  later  as  he  did  not\tfind<br \/>\nsufficient evidence  to proceed\t against them.\tThe  learned<br \/>\nJudge proceeded against A-1 to A-8 and convicted them mainly<br \/>\non the\tbasis of  the evidence\tof Sua (PW-1), Mohan (PW-2),<br \/>\nArjun (PW-7), Punna (PW-6) and Rutna (PW-9). All the accused<br \/>\nwere convicted\tunder Section  302 read with Section 149 IPC<br \/>\nfor causing  the murders  of Anna,  Kana and  Madhu and also<br \/>\nunder Sections\t323 and 324, both read with Sections 149 IPC<br \/>\nfor causing  injuries to  the  said  prosecution  witnesses.<br \/>\nVishnu (A-2),  Ratna  (A-5)  and  Sardara  (A-7)  were\talso<br \/>\nconvicted under\t Section 148 IPC and the rest were convicted<br \/>\nunder Section 147 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>     All the  eight accused  challenged their conviction and<br \/>\nsentence by  filing Criminal  Appeal No.  444 of 1987 in the<br \/>\nHigh Court  of Rajasthan.  The High Court on re-appreciation<br \/>\nof the evidence found that:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   the eye  witnesses had tried to suppress the genesis of<br \/>\n     the incidence;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   the eye  witnesses had  falsely implicated\t before\t the<br \/>\n     police 13\tmore persons,  as disclosed by the fact that<br \/>\n     the police\t did not  think it  fit to  file any  charge<br \/>\n     sheet  against   all  of  them  and  six  accused\twere<br \/>\n     discharged by the Sessions Court;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   all the eye witnesses denied to have made statements on<br \/>\n     28.3.1986 and  4.7.1986 with  reference to\t which\tthey<br \/>\n     were contradicted during their cross-examination;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   all the  eye witnesses  have made\tsimilar improvements<br \/>\n     while giving their evidence in the court;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   the eye  witnesses have falsely denied that the accused<br \/>\n     had received any injury at their hands;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   the independent  eye witnesses Bholu (PW-4), Sayar (PW-\n<\/p>\n<p>     5), Bhura (PW-6) and Devi Singh (PW-13) did not support<br \/>\n     the prosecution but supported the defence version;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Balu (PW-3) and Bhoma (PW-10) who are the real brothers<br \/>\n     of the  deceased Anna  and who had also claimed to have<br \/>\n     seen the incidence did not support the prosecution.<br \/>\n     Moreover, the  High Court\talso sound  that  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt had  committed a\tgrave error  of law  in relying upon<br \/>\nonly some portions of the statements of the accused recorded<br \/>\nunder Section  313 Cr.\tP. C.  and ignoring  their remaining<br \/>\nversion\t as   regards  the  circumstances  under  which\t the<br \/>\nincident had  happened and  they had  caused injuries to the<br \/>\ndeceased and  the members of this party and some of them had<br \/>\nreceived injuries  a the  hands\t of  the  deceased  and\t the<br \/>\ninjured eye  witnesses. The  High Court\t also found on close<br \/>\nscrutiny of  the evidence  that the defence version was more<br \/>\nprobable than  the version  given by  the eye  witnesses. It<br \/>\nheld that  the prosecution  has failed to establish that A-1<br \/>\nto A-8\thad committed the offences for which they were tried<br \/>\nand convicted by the trial court. It, therefore, allowed the<br \/>\nappeal, set  aside the\tjudgment  of  the  trial  court\t and<br \/>\nacquitted them.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.  Sushil   Kumar  Jain,\t  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants, very  strenuously urged  that the police had not<br \/>\nconducted the  investigation fairly  and with a view to help<br \/>\nthe accused  false  statements\tin  the\t names\tof  the\t eye<br \/>\nwitnesses  were\t recorded  on  28.3.1986  and  4.7.1986.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tall the\t eye witnesses\thave denied  to have<br \/>\nmade the  statements which  they are alleged to have made on<br \/>\n28.3.1986 and  4.7.1986. They  were recorded  by the  police<br \/>\nofficers who  were not incharge of the investigation of this<br \/>\ncase. The  eye witnesses  were contradicted  with  reference<br \/>\ncase. The  eye witnesses were contradicted with reference to<br \/>\nthose statements  and some  of the  findings recorded by the<br \/>\nHigh Court  are based  upon the\t said contradictions and the<br \/>\ninference drawn\t therefrom. He\tsubmitted that\tif they\t are<br \/>\nignored from consideration than the findings mentioned above<br \/>\nat serial  numbers 2,  3 and  4 will  have to be regarded as<br \/>\nunsustainable. He  also submitted  that the finding that the<br \/>\neye witnesses  had tried  to suppress  the  genesis  of\t the<br \/>\nincidence is  not at  all correct  as the eye witnesses have<br \/>\nclearly deposed\t about how  the incident stated and what was<br \/>\nthe cause  for the  same. He further submitted that as large<br \/>\nnumber of persons were involved in the incident it was quite<br \/>\nlikely that  the eye  witnesses did not notice what injuries<br \/>\nwere caused on the persons of the accused. Anna and kana had<br \/>\nfallen down  on the  ground after receiving serious injuries<br \/>\nand therefore  it is  quite probable  that attention  of the<br \/>\nremaining members  of the  party was  not drawn\t towards the<br \/>\ninjuries received  by the  accused. Moreover,  the  injuries<br \/>\nreceived by  Jala (A-1), Vishnu (A-2), Gopy (A-3), Ratan (A-\n<\/p>\n<p>5), Laxman  (A-6) and  Sardara (A-7)  were  only  minor\t and<br \/>\nsimple in nature. It was, therefore, submitted that the High<br \/>\nCourt committed\t an error  in rejecting\t the evidence of the<br \/>\neye witnesses  on the ground that they had failed to explain<br \/>\nthe injuries  on the  persons  of  the\taccused.  He  lastly<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tthe  fact  that\t the  tow  brothers  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and  independent eye  witnesses did not support the<br \/>\nprosecution was\t not at\t all a\tgood ground for disbelieving<br \/>\nthe eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The investigation\tpursuant to  the FIR  lodged by\t Sua<br \/>\n(PW-1) was  done by  Hardayal Singh  (PW-20). He has deposed<br \/>\nabout the  recording of\t the statements\t of the\t prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses between  11.2.1986 and  18.2.1986. In his evidence<br \/>\nhe has\tfurther stated\tthat P.\t D. Sharma, who was then the<br \/>\nAdditional  Superintendent  of\tPolice,\t had  also  recorded<br \/>\nstatements of  some witnesses  in connection with this case.<br \/>\nIn his\tcross-examination, he further stated that he did not<br \/>\nknow how  may police officers had conducted investigation in<br \/>\nthis case.  It appears\tthat the statements of the witnesses<br \/>\nrecorded on  28.3.1986 and  4.7.1986 were  not given  to the<br \/>\naccused but  they came\tto know\t about them  after the trial<br \/>\nbegan. Therefore, while the evidence of Sua (PW-1) was being<br \/>\nrecorded on  12.1.1987 an application was given on behalf of<br \/>\nthe accused  for summoning  the file  which contained  those<br \/>\nstatements. It\tfurther appears\t that in  view of  the\tsaid<br \/>\napplication the\t Public Prosecutor produced those statements<br \/>\nfrom the  file of  another sessions  case against one Sohan.<br \/>\nAll the\t eye witnesses\twere contradicted  with reference to<br \/>\nthe statements\tmade on 28.3.1986 and 4.7.1986. Whereas some<br \/>\nwitnesses had  denied to  have made  any statement  on those<br \/>\nothers merely  denied that they had stated what was recorded<br \/>\ntherein. No  attempt  whatsoever  was  made  by\t the  Public<br \/>\nProsecutor to  show that  those statements  were recorded by<br \/>\nthe  police  officers,\twho  were  not\tconnected  with\t the<br \/>\ninvestigation of  this case  or that they were not correctly<br \/>\nrecorded. We  also find\t from the  record that\tan  advocate<br \/>\nengaged by  the complainant&#8217;s party was assisting the Public<br \/>\nProsecutor while  the trial  was  going\t on.  Therefore,  in<br \/>\nabsence of  any material  to indicate that the investigation<br \/>\nwas not fairly conducted the contentions raised on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellants\tthat the  eye  witnesses  should  have\tbeen<br \/>\nbelieved when  they stated  that they  had  not\t made  those<br \/>\nstatements, cannot  be accepted.  It is\t significant to note<br \/>\nthat Mohan  (PW-2) admitted  in his  cross-examination\tthat<br \/>\npolice had  recorded his  statements three  times. The first<br \/>\nstatement was recorded at the site of the occurrence, second<br \/>\nin Village  Masiniya and third a the police station. He also<br \/>\nadmitted that  the statements of Panna, Arjun, Sua and Rukma<br \/>\nwere also  recorded by\tthe police  though he  did not state<br \/>\nspecifically  that   their  statements\twere  also  recorded<br \/>\nthrice. If  that part  of his  evidence is read carefully it<br \/>\ndiscloses that\tthe statements\tof those witnesses were also<br \/>\nrecorded thrice.  In view of these admission it is difficult<br \/>\nto believe  the say  of the  injured eye witnesses, and also<br \/>\naccept\tthe  contention\t of  the  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants, that  they had  not given  statements either  on<br \/>\n28.3.1986 or  on 4.7.1986.  When Arjun (PW-7) was questioned<br \/>\nregarding the  statement dated\t28.3.1986  recorded  by\t the<br \/>\nadditional Superintendent  of Police  he merely\t stated that<br \/>\nthe did not remember whether it was recorded or not. for all<br \/>\nthese reasons  the contention  raised by  Mr. Jain  that two<br \/>\nimportance should be given to those contradiction which have<br \/>\nbeen proved  on the  basis of  the  statements\trecorded  on<br \/>\n28.3.1986 and  4.7.1986, cannot be accepted and no fault can<br \/>\nbe found  with the  findings recorded by the High Court that<br \/>\nthe eye\t witnesses Sua,\t Mohan, Panna,\tArjun and  Rukam had<br \/>\ntried to  implicate some  innocent persons also and in order<br \/>\nto  make   their  evidence  acceptable\tby  court  had\tmade<br \/>\nconsistent improvements\t while giving  their evidence in the<br \/>\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The fact  that as\tmany as\t six  accused  had  received<br \/>\ninjuries during\t the incident  cannot be disputed in view of<br \/>\nthe medical evidence on record. All the injuries received by<br \/>\nJala (A-1) and Vishnu (A-2) were not minor. Vishnu (A-2) had<br \/>\nreceived a  lacerated wound  on his head. They were bleeding<br \/>\ninjuries. All  the  injured  eye  witnesses  who  were\twith<br \/>\ndeceased Anna  have denied  to have caused any injury to any<br \/>\nof the\taccused. They  flatly denied  that they\t had weapons<br \/>\nwith them  at the  time of  the\t incident.  If\tunder  these<br \/>\ncircumstances the  High Court  thought it  fit not to place,<br \/>\nany reliance  on Sua,  Mohan, Panna,  Arjun  and  Rukam,  it<br \/>\ncannot be  said that  the High\tCourt was  not justified  in<br \/>\ndoing so.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We also  find that\t the  accused  in  their  statements<br \/>\nrecorded under\tSection 313 Cr. P. C. have clearly explained<br \/>\nthe injuries  caused on\t the three deceased and have further<br \/>\nexplained how  the other  members of  Anna&#8217;s party  received<br \/>\ninjuries at  their hands. merely because the accused&#8217;s party<br \/>\nreceived  less\tinjuries  and  the  party  of  the  deceased<br \/>\nreceived more  serious injuries,  as a result of which three<br \/>\npersons\t died,\t it  cannot  be\t said  that  they  were\t the<br \/>\naggressors. It\tis quite likely as stated by them that\tthey<br \/>\ndid was\t in exercise of their right of private defence. This<br \/>\nis not\ta case\twhere a large number of injuries were caused<br \/>\nto the\tdeceased or to the injured witnesses. The High Court<br \/>\nwas, therefore,\t right in  holding that\t the defence version<br \/>\nwas more  probable than the version given by the prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses Sua, Mohan, Punna, Arjun and Rukma.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We see  no substance  in this  appeal. Therefore,\tthis<br \/>\nappeal is  dismissed and  bail\tbonds  of  the\taccused\t are<br \/>\nordered to be cancelled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 Author: Nanavati Bench: G. N. Ray, G. T. Nanavati PETITIONER: SMT. RUKMA &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: JALA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/1997 BENCH: G. N. RAY, G. T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&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-1527","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>Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 - 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\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-28T04:18:10+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T04:18:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2105,\"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\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\",\"name\":\"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T04:18:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 - 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\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-28T04:18:10+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997","datePublished":"1997-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T04:18:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997"},"wordCount":2105,"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\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997","name":"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T04:18:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukma-ors-vs-jala-ors-on-8-august-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Rukma &amp; Ors vs Jala &amp; Ors on 8 August, 1997"}]},{"@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\/1527","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=1527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}