{"id":156448,"date":"2006-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2"},"modified":"2015-12-17T11:13:25","modified_gmt":"2015-12-17T05:43:25","slug":"state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  326 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Chhattisgarh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLekhram\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA,  J :\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe Respondent herein was working in the house of the father of<br \/>\nSushila Bai (PW-1).  She is said to have been born on 25.12.1970.  She<br \/>\nwas admitted in a village school in 1977.  She was married in the year<br \/>\n1985.  She came back to her parent&#8217;s place from her in-laws house after<br \/>\nthe &#8216;gauna&#8217; ceremeony was celebrated.  The Respondent herein is said<br \/>\nto have induced her to leave the village along with him in the night<br \/>\nintervening between 25th and 26th February, 1986.  A First Information<br \/>\nReport was lodged on 26.2.1986 by Jeewan Ram Chandel (PW-6) who<br \/>\nhappened to be the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix Sushila Bai.  In the<br \/>\nsaid report, the Respondent herein was said to have been abducted her.<br \/>\nThe father of the prosecutrix, however, was asked by the officer-in-<br \/>\ncharge of the police station to produce proof of her age whereupon<br \/>\ncertificate as per the school register was filed.  A case under Sections<br \/>\n366 and 376 was thereafter initiated against the Respondent.  The<br \/>\nprosecutrix (PW-1) and the Respondent thereafter were found to be<br \/>\nresiding at Nagpur.  The first informant was sent there by the father of<br \/>\nthe prosecutrix with the police party.  PW-1 was recovered on<br \/>\n23.3.1987.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tPW-1 alleged in her evidence before the court that she was taken<br \/>\nout of the house by the Respondent stating that he would take her to the<br \/>\nNarmada Fair.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe prosecution admittedly was proceeding on the hypothesis<br \/>\nthat the Respondent had assured her that he would keep her like his<br \/>\nwife.  When she denied the said fact, she was declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tBefore the learned Trial Judge, evidence was adduced on behalf<br \/>\nof the prosecution to show that as on 25.2.1986, she was minor.  Apart<br \/>\nfrom the statement of the prosecutrix herself, her father (PW-3) as also<br \/>\nthe Head Master (PW-4) and the Assistant Teacher (PW-5) of the<br \/>\nPrimary Govt. School Baj Gauda were examined.  The entry in the<br \/>\nschool register showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be<br \/>\n25.12.1970 was proved.  The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the<br \/>\nsaid evidence opined that on the date of occurrence she was a minor.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that having<br \/>\nregard to the age of the prosecutrix the stand of the defence that the<br \/>\naccused had sexual intercourse with her with consent was of little<br \/>\nimportance.  The learned Sessions Judge opined that in view of the fact<br \/>\nthat the Respondent herein had not disputed that he had sexual<br \/>\nintercourse with the prosecutrix at Nagpur, the charge of rape must be<br \/>\nheld to have been proved.  It was, however, held that no case has been<br \/>\nmade out against the Respondent under Sections 363 and 366 of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code.  Taking a lenient view of the matter, the Respondent<br \/>\nwas sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section<br \/>\n376 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIn the appeal, the High Court did not enter into the evidences<br \/>\nbrought on record.  The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was<br \/>\nreversed on the premise that entries made in a school register is not<br \/>\nconclusive evidence as regards the date of birth of PW-1.   The<br \/>\nevidence of PW-3 the father of the prosecutrix was also disbelieved<br \/>\nsolely on the ground that he was not in a position to say about the date<br \/>\nof birth of his other children.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe sole question which, thus, arises for our consideration is as<br \/>\nto whether the State has brought enough materials on record to prove<br \/>\nthat PW-1 was a minor as on the date of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tPW-4 Shri Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava was working as a Head<br \/>\nMaster in the primary government school Baj Gauda.  He stated on oath<br \/>\nthat while taking admission, her mother disclosed about the date of<br \/>\nbirth on the basis of which the same was recorded in the school register<br \/>\nas 25.12.1970.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tPW-5 Shri Jumuk Lal Sahu was an Assistant Teacher in the year<br \/>\n1977-78 when PW-1 was admitted in the said school.  He proved the<br \/>\nsaid entries as having been written by him.  He further stated that the<br \/>\ndate of birth of PW-1 was certified by Shakuntala Devi, mother of the<br \/>\nprosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tNothing, in our opinion, has been elicited in the cross-<br \/>\nexamination of the said witnesses to show that their statements were not<br \/>\ncorrect.  PW-3 is the father of the prosecutrix.  According to him, his<br \/>\neldest daughter Uttara was born in the year 1966 and the second<br \/>\ndaughter Nandni Kumari in 1968.  Sushila Bai prosecutrix was born on<br \/>\n25.12.1970.  He further stated that the son Santosh was born in the year<br \/>\n1973 and thereafter another son Kamlesh was born in 1976.  The last<br \/>\nchild Mukta was born in 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tPW-1 prosecutrix admitted that she was the third child of her<br \/>\nparents and two of her sisters are elder to her.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tA register maintained in a school is admissible in evidence to<br \/>\nprove date of birth of the person concerned in terms of Section 35 of the<br \/>\nIndian Evidence Act.  Such dates of births are recorded in the school<br \/>\nregister by the authorities in discharge of their public duty.  PW-5, who<br \/>\nwas an Assistant Teacher in the said school in the year 1977,<br \/>\ncategorically stated that the mother of the prosecutrix disclosed her date<br \/>\nof birth.  Father of the prosecutrix also deposed to the said effect.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe prosecutrix took admission in the year 1977.  She was,<br \/>\ntherefore, about 6-7 years old at that time.  She was admitted in Class I.<br \/>\nEven by the village standard, she took admission in the school a bit late.<br \/>\nShe was married in the year 1985 when she was evidently a minor.  She<br \/>\nstayed in her in-laws place for some time and after the &#8216;gauna&#8217;<br \/>\nceremony, she came back.  The materials on record as regard the age of<br \/>\nthe prosecutrix was, therefore, required to be considered on the<br \/>\naforementioned backdrop.  It may be true that an entry in the school<br \/>\nregister is not conclusive but it has evidentiary value.  Such evidentiary<br \/>\nvalue of a school register is corroborated by oral evidence as the same<br \/>\nwas recorded on the basis of the statement of the mother of the<br \/>\nprosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tOnly because PW-3 the father of the prosecutrix could not state<br \/>\nabout the date of birth of his other children, the same, by itself, would<br \/>\nnot mean that he had been deposing falsely.  We have noticed<br \/>\nhereinbefore, that he, in answer to the querries made by the counsel for<br \/>\nthe parties, categorically stated about the year in which his other<br \/>\nchildren were born. His statement in this behalf appears to be consistent<br \/>\nand if the said statements were corroborative of the entries made in the<br \/>\nregister in the school, there was no reason as to why the High Court<br \/>\nshould have disbelieved the same.  We, therefore, are of the opinion<br \/>\nthat the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned<br \/>\njudgment.  It cannot, therefore, be sustained.  It is set aside accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThis brings us to the question of quantum of sentence.  The<br \/>\nquestion which, thus, arises for consideration is whether a case has been<br \/>\nmade out to invoke the proviso appended to Section 376 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code.  The Trial Court did so.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe prosecutrix was a mature girl.  She was married.  She spent a<br \/>\nfew months in her in-laws&#8217; place.  The Respondent was working in her<br \/>\nhouse.  They, thus, knew each other for a long time.  The prosecution<br \/>\nevidently could not prove its case that she was enticed away from the<br \/>\ncustody of her guardian by the Respondent on a false plea that he would<br \/>\nmarry her.  She denied the said suggestion as presumably she was<br \/>\naware that she being married, the question of her marrying the<br \/>\nRespondent again may not arise.  She lived for some time with the<br \/>\nRespondent in a rented house.  Both the courts proceeded on the basis<br \/>\nthat she was a consenting party.  The occurrence took place in the year<br \/>\n1986.  The Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court in the<br \/>\nyear 1987.  The same remained pending about 10 years.  The special<br \/>\nleave petition was filed by the State 230 days after the prescribed period<br \/>\nof limitation for preferring such appeal.  The delay in filing the special<br \/>\nleave petition, however, was condoned.  He is said to have remained in<br \/>\ncustody for about one and a half year.  In the peculiar facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that both the<br \/>\ncourts have arrived at the conclusion that she was a consenting party, in<br \/>\nour opinion, it may not be proper to send the Appellant back to prison.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tFor the aforementioned reasons, while setting aside the judgment<br \/>\nof the High Court and affirming that of the Trial Court, we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that the interest of justice would be met if the Respondent is<br \/>\ndirected to be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.  This<br \/>\nappeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 326 of 1999 PETITIONER: State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT: Lekhram DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, [&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-156448","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>State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 - 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\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-17T05:43:25+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=\"8 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-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T05:43:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":1503,\"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\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\",\"name\":\"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T05:43:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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 Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 - 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\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-17T05:43:25+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T05:43:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2"},"wordCount":1503,"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\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2","name":"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T05:43:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-vs-lekhram-on-5-april-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lekhram on 5 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/156448","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=156448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}