{"id":153958,"date":"2010-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-07T19:54:55","modified_gmt":"2018-11-07T14:24:55","slug":"ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                              [1]\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                            Cr. Rev No. 77 of 2010\n                                           ...\n             Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ Ramdeo Ram ...                   Petitioner\n                                   -V e r s u s-\n             1. The State of Jharkhand.\n             2. Punit Ram                                        ...     Opposite Parties.\n                                           ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                           ...\n             For the Petitioner            : - Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate.\n             For the State                 : - A.P.P.\n             For the Opposite Party No. 2 : - Mr. C. S. Prasad, Advocate.\n                                           ...\n4\/03.05.2010<\/pre>\n<p>                Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>              2.             This Cr. Revision application has been filed with a prayer for directing<br \/>\n              the trial court to frame charge under Sections 302\/34 of the I.P.C. against the<br \/>\n              Opposite Party No. 2 and to try the opposite party No. 2 accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>              3.             Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that under Sections<br \/>\n              307 and 302\/34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2002,<br \/>\n              arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 29 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 255<br \/>\n              of 2004, the trial was conducted against several accused persons including the<br \/>\n              Opposite Party No. 2 but due to inadvertence, the charge under Sections 307 and<br \/>\n              302\/34 of the I.P.C. was omitted in respect of the Opposite Party No. 2 and<br \/>\n              consequently, while recording the judgment, the trial court could not convict the<br \/>\n              accused\/Opposite Party No. 2 for the offences under Sections 302\/34 of the I.P.C.<br \/>\n              Even though, the trial court has found that the death of the deceased was caused<br \/>\n              pursuant to the assault, conjointly made by the accused persons including the<br \/>\n              Opposite Party No. 2 in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        Learned counsel therefore prays that under the provisions of<br \/>\n              Section 464 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court be directed to try the case against the<br \/>\n              Opposite Party No. 2 by framing charge for the offences under Sections 302\/34 of<br \/>\n              the I.P.C. against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>              4.             Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 objects to the very<br \/>\n              maintainability of this Revision application and submits that the charge against the<br \/>\n              accused persons at the trail, was framed around eight years ago and the judgment in<br \/>\n              the case was passed in July, 2009 and during this period, prior to the date of<br \/>\n              pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner, being the informant of the case, did<br \/>\n              not bother to point out any need for modification or alteration in the charge and<br \/>\n              neither did the trial court find any such necessity during the pendency of the trial to<br \/>\n              alter the charge before passing the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>              5.             I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone<br \/>\n              through the impugned judgment of the court below passed in the aforesaid Sessions<br \/>\n              Trial No. 368 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                [2]<\/p>\n<p>6.             It appears that the case was instituted against as many as six accused<br \/>\npersons including the Opposite Party No. 2 and on the basis of the chargesheet<br \/>\nsubmitted by the Investigating Officer, cognizance against all the accused persons<br \/>\nincluding the Opposite Party No. 2 by the court below was taken for the offences<br \/>\nunder Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302\/34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>                       It also appears that according to the prosecution&#8217;s case, on the<br \/>\ndate and time of occurrence, while the members of the informant party were on their<br \/>\nway, the accused persons accosted them armed with Lathis, sticks, swords and spears<br \/>\nand started assaulting the members of the informant-party including the injured<br \/>\npersons Bishun Ram, Guletan Ram and Tahal Ram. On hearing the alarms, the<br \/>\ninformant Ramdeo Ram came running and wanted to rescue the victims but he was<br \/>\nassaulted with Lathi on his leg by the accused Talo Ram and Punit Ram (Opposite<br \/>\nParty No. 2). They also assaulted Tahal Ram with Lathis. At that time, the co-<br \/>\naccused, Pokhan Ram dealt a spear blow on the abdomen of Gultem Ram (deceased).<br \/>\nSimilar spear blow was also dealt by the co-accused Ghanshyam Ram on another<br \/>\nmember of the informant-party, namely, Bishun Ram, as a result of which, he also<br \/>\nsustained injuries on his right thigh and left ankle.\n<\/p>\n<p>                       The prosecution&#8217;s further case is that besides the informant,<br \/>\nRamdeo Ram, the other persons, namely, Ishwar Ram, Binod Ram and Bhuneshwar<br \/>\nRam had also arrived there and they were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. On<br \/>\nthe basis of the proposed evidences against the individual accused persons, the<br \/>\nprosecution had proposed the framing of charge against the accused persons, namely,<br \/>\nNarayan Ram, Niranjan Ram, Jiya Ram for the offences under Sections 341, 323,<br \/>\n324\/34, 307, 302\/34 of the I.P.C. Against the accused persons, namely, Ghanshyam<br \/>\nRam and Talo Ram, the prosecution had proposed framing of charge for the offences<br \/>\nunder Sections 341, 323, 324\/34 307\/34, 302\/34 of the I.P.C. and against the accused<br \/>\nPunit Ram (Opposite Party No. 2) the prosecution had proposed to frame charge<br \/>\nunder Sections 341, 323, 324\/34 of the I.P.C. The proposed charges on being<br \/>\napproved by the trial court, the accused persons stood charged accordingly. It also<br \/>\nappears from the evidences of the witnesses, as discussed in the judgment of the<br \/>\ncourt below, that in consonance with the charges against the individual accused<br \/>\npersons, the witnesses have adduced evidence specifying the role played by each of<br \/>\nthe accused persons. The evidence of the witnesses, as observed by the trial court, in<br \/>\nrespect of the injury caused to the deceased, was specifically attributed to the<br \/>\naccused Pokhan Ram. Specific evidence was similarly attributed to the co-accused<br \/>\nGhanshyam Ram for causing spear injury to the informant. As against the accused<br \/>\nPunit Ram (Opposite Party No. 2), the specific evidence was that he had assaulted<br \/>\nthe informant with Lathi on the victim&#8217;s leg. It further appears that after considering<br \/>\nthe evidences, including the oral and medical evidences, the trial court had come to<br \/>\n                               [3]<\/p>\n<p>its finding, on the point of common intention which has been recorded as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                      &#8220;It is evident on the record that almost all the accused<br \/>\n              persons, they had assembled and they have started assaulting the<br \/>\n              injured as stated above at a time. It is a clear case that accused<br \/>\n              persons had made a plan to make assault to injured and they were of<br \/>\n              the view that they had to assault the injured in furtherance of common<br \/>\n              intention.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                      The trial court has further made the following observations: &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                      &#8220;The injuries which were inflicted by the accused persons on<br \/>\n              deceased also suggest that these injuries are sufficient to cause death<br \/>\n              of Guletan Ram. Keeping in the view accused persons had a common<br \/>\n              intention to kill Guletan Ram. Since one accused Punit Ram is not<br \/>\n              facing the trial for the charge punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. or<br \/>\n              302\/34 I.P.C. that&#8217;s why, he could not be convicted for the charge<br \/>\n              punishable under Section 302\/34 I.P.C. for the reason that non-<br \/>\n              framing of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., he will be prejudiced,<br \/>\n              if he will be convicted.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                      &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230;&#8221;It is well-settled law that accused should be given<br \/>\n              notice to him for the accusation for which he is going to be tried. The<br \/>\n              offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is a capital offence. It was the<br \/>\n              primary duty that the prosecution should either alter the charge or<br \/>\n              take notice in this context. Since no charge is framed against him<br \/>\n              under Section 302 I.P.C. that&#8217;s why it is not just and proper to convict<br \/>\n              him for the charge punishable under Section 302\/34 of the I.P.C and if<br \/>\n              he is convicted for the charge under Section 302\/34 of the I.P.C., he<br \/>\n              will be prejudiced by non-framing of the charge for that benefit will be<br \/>\n              given in favour of the accused.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>7.            Apparently, on the point of common intention, the finding is that the<br \/>\nintention commonly shared between the accused was to assault and cause injury to<br \/>\nthe members of the informant-party. Even if the trial court has proceeded further, on<br \/>\nthe basis of the fact that a spear-blow on the abdomen of the deceased was given by<br \/>\none of the accused persons, to draw the inference that the common accused intention<br \/>\nof the accused persons was to kill the deceased, yet, the earlier observations based on<br \/>\nthe evidences of the witnesses do confirm that the accused Punit Ram (Opposite<br \/>\nParty no. 2), was not the author of the spear injury, sustained by the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.            The above facts, as appearing in the judgment of the court below have<br \/>\nbeen recorded only for the purpose of assessing as to whether the omission to frame<br \/>\ncharge under Section 302\/34 of the I.P.C. against the Opposite party No. 2, could be<br \/>\nintentional or was an inadvertent omission and whether the non-framing of the<br \/>\ncharge for the aforesaid offence has resulted in failure of justice, as contemplated<br \/>\nunder the provisions of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.            As appearing from the allegations in the prosecution&#8217;s case, though it<br \/>\nis alleged that the accused persons variously armed with Lathis and other weapons,<br \/>\nhad arrived at the place of occurrence and began to assault the informant, the specific<br \/>\nallegations against the accused Punit Ram (Opposite Party No. 2), was that he had<br \/>\n                                     [4]<\/p>\n<p>      assaulted the informant with Lathi, causing injury on the informant&#8217;s leg. No other<br \/>\n      role has been attributed to him of having participated in the alleged assault on the<br \/>\n      deceased. In the light of such allegations, it does not appear that the omission to<br \/>\n      frame charge against the accused Punit Ram (Opposite Party no. 2) for the offence<br \/>\n      under Sections 302\/34 of the I.P.C. was an inadvertent mistake. Rather, the charge<br \/>\n      appears to have been framed on the basis of the allegations against the individual<br \/>\n      accused and the trial was conducted, accordingly, against the accused persons. As<br \/>\n      observed, even in the light of the evidences adduced by the Prosecution witnesses,<br \/>\n      neither the Prosecution nor the trial court had felt any need to alter the charge or to<br \/>\n      add the charge for the offence under Sections 302\/34 of the I.P.C. against the<br \/>\n      accused Punit Ram (Opposite Party No. 2). From the facts and circumstances, I do<br \/>\n      not find that the omission of the charge for the offence under Sections 302\/34 of the<br \/>\n      I.P.C. framed against the accused Punit Ram\/Opposite Party No. 2, has resulted in<br \/>\n      failure of justice. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground to invoke the provisions of<br \/>\n      Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>      10.           In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any<br \/>\n      merit in this application. Accordingly, this Cr. Rev. Application is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                  (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)<br \/>\nAPK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. Cr. Rev No. 77 of 2010 &#8230; Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ Ramdeo Ram &#8230; Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 - 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\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-07T14:24:55+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-07T14:24:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1680,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-07T14:24:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 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":"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 - 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\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-07T14:24:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-07T14:24:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010"},"wordCount":1680,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010","name":"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-07T14:24:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdeo-kumar-ramdeo-kumar-ram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramdeo Kumar @ Ramdeo Kumar Ram @ &#8230; vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 3 May, 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\/153958","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=153958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}