{"id":158784,"date":"2010-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-22T09:43:55","modified_gmt":"2018-07-22T04:13:55","slug":"ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010<\/div>\n
     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR\n             Criminal Appeal No. 2769\/2000\n\n\n                             Ramhit\n\n                               Vs.\n\n                   State of Madhya Pradesh\n\nPresent:    Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Saksena &\n            Hon'ble Shri R.S. Jha, JJ.\n________________________________________________\nShri Rajneesh Patel, counsel for the appellant.\n\nShri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer, for the State\/respondent.\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                        ( -02-2010 )<\/p>\n
R.S.Jha, J. :\n<\/p>\n
       This appeal has been filed by the appellant against his
\nconviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the
\nIndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) by
\njudgment dated 17-11-2000 passed by the Additional
\nSessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Sessions Trial No.
\n29 of 1995 and the consequent sentence of imprisonment for
\nlife and a fine of Rs.2,000\/- and in default, R.I. for two years<\/p>\n
2.     The prosecution case against the accused\/appellant
\nRamhit is that he and his father Dadoli were harvesting their
\ncrops in the afternoon of 13-11-94 in village Kalla when the
\ndeceased Lallu broke their hedge for making a passage for
\ntheir bullock cart which led to an altercation between the
\nappellant Ramhit, his father Dadoli and the deceased Lallu.
\nOn hearing the altercation villagers, specifically, Ram
\nSumiran (PW-4) and Rambali (PW-5) and others reached the
\nspot and stopped the parties from fighting. Thereafter, while
\nthe deceased Lallu and his brother Makholi (PW-3) were
\n                                2                 Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n00<\/span><\/p>\n
going to their house which was only at a short distance on
\nway, the accused\/appellant ran to his house, brought a spear
\n(Ballam) and struck a single blow in front lower neck of the
\ndeceased Lallu which cut through his wind pipe and heart
\nresulting in his death.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The trial Court on examining the oral and documentary
\nevidence on record has held the appellant guilty of an
\noffence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but has
\nacquitted his father Dadoli. Being aggrieved by his conviction
\nunder Section 302 of the IPC the appellant has filed the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.    It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat his conviction by the trial Court is based on a
\nmisinterpretation and misreading of the oral documentary
\nevidence on record inasmuch as the trial Court has failed to
\nconsider the evidence on record to the effect that both the
\nparties fought on account of intrusion of the deceased and
\nhis brother Makholi (PW-3) on the property of the appellant
\nand his father Dadoli which resulted in retaliation on their part
\nand in the ensuing fight the appellant’s father Dadoli as well
\na the appellant received injuries which have not been
\nexplained properly by the prosecution. The appellant further
\nsubmits that he and his father Dadoli were assaulted by the
\ndeceased Lallu and his brother Makholi and the appellant
\nand his father retaliated in their defence. It is submitted that
\nin the ensuing struggle the spear (Ballam) of the deceased
\nLallu himself, accidentally pierced into his throat resulting in
\nhis death. It is stated that in the aforesaid facts and
\ncircumstances of the case which have not been properly
\nappreciated by the trial Court no offence under Section 302
\nof the IPC is made out against the appellant. In the
\nalternative it is submitted that the single injury which resulted
\n                                3                Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n00<\/span><\/p>\n
in the death of the deceased Lallu was caused in a fight
\nwhich flared up suddenly and in such circumstances looking
\nto the surrounding facts and the single injury caused to the
\ndeceased the offence if any committed by the appellant
\nwould at best be one under Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC
\nand not Section 302 of the IPC as held by the trial Court. It is
\nsubmitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court is
\nperverse and deserves to be set aside. In support of his
\nsubmissions the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
\nhas relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
\nrendered in the cases of Bunnilal Chaudhary v. State of
\nBihar, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 66, Shivapps Buddappa Kolkar
\nv. State of Karnataka and others, 2005 SCC (Cri) 93 and
\nByvarapu Raju v. State of A.P. and another, (2008) 1 SCC
\n(Cri) 30.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State
\nsubmits that the evidence on record including the evidence
\nrecorded regarding injuries on the person of the appellant
\nand his father has duly been taken into consideration by the
\ntrial Court. It is stated that the trial Court has duly analysed
\nthe oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly
\nrecorded a conclusion that a fight broke out between the
\nappellant, his father Dadoli and the deceased Lallu but the
\nparties were pacified by Ram Sumiran (PW-4) and others
\nafter which the deceased and his brother started going home
\nbut the accused\/appellant ran to his house, brought a spear
\nalong with him and struck a heavy blow by the said spear on
\nthe front of the lower neck of the deceased Lallu which
\nresulted in his death on the spot and in such circumstances,
\nthe   appellant has rightly been held guilty of an offence
\npunishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted
\n                               4               Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n00<\/span><\/p>\n
thereunder. The learned counsel for the respondent has
\nplaced reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered
\nin the case of State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh, AIR 2004
\nSC 1264 in support of his submissions.\n<\/p>\n
6.    We have gone through the impugned judgment as well
\nas the oral and documentary evidence on record specifically
\nthat of   Makholi (PW-3), Ram Sumiran (PW-4), Rambali
\n(PW-5), Dr. A.K.Awadhiya (PW-7) and Mahendra Singh
\nKarchuli (PW-8) as well as the statements of Dr. R.K.Jain
\n(DW-1), Dr. A.C.Khare (DW-3) and Sant Prasad Patel
\n(DW-4).\n<\/p>\n
7.    From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses it is
\nclear that a fight between the accused\/appellant and his
\nfather Dadoli and the deceased Lallu occurred on account of
\nthe deceased removing a part of the hedge between the land
\nof the appellant and the deceased and blows were
\nexchanged by both the parties and the father of the accused\/
\nappellant was thrown on the ground by the deceased Lallu
\nas a result of which he suffered amongst others a simple
\ninjury on his head but at this stage Ram Sumiran (PW-4) and
\nothers reached the spot and counselled both the sides after
\nseparating them. Ram Sumiran (PW-4) in paragraph 17 of
\nhis statement has clearly stated that at this stage peace was
\nbrought about and that the parties started going to their
\nseparate ways. It is also evident from the statements of the
\nwitnesses specifically PW-4, Ram Sumiran (in paragraph 23)
\nthat thereafter the accused\/appellant ran to his house and
\ncame back after five minutes with a spear (Ballam) and
\nwithout saying anything struck the fatal blow in the front
\nlower part of the neck of the deceased Lallu as a result of
\nwhich he fell down and thereafter died on the spot. The
\n                                 5                 Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n00<\/span><\/p>\n
offending blood stained weapon and blood stained clothes
\nwere also seized by the police from the accused.\n<\/p>\n
8.    In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the incident
\nactually occurred in two parts, the first part when the parties
\nexchanged blows inflicting simple injuries on each other and
\nthe second part when after being pacified the parties started
\ngoing their home ways, the accused\/appellant ran to his
\nhouse which was nearby, brought a spear and struck the
\nfatal blow.\n<\/p>\n
9.    The plea of self defence or of accidental death in
\nsudden fight taken by the appellant deserves to be rejected
\nas in the instant case it is clear that when the sudden fight
\nbroke out between the parties the offending weapon was not
\ncarried by the accused\/appellant and that in the sudden fight
\nboth the parties grappled with each other resulting in simple
\ninjuries to both of them including the injury on the head of
\nDadoli, father of the accused\/appellant. It is also clear that at
\nthis stage villagers including PW-4, Ram Sumiran intervened
\nand the parties were separated. It is also clear from the
\nevidence that after being separated the deceased along with
\nhis brother started going back to their home and it is at this
\nstage that the accused\/appellant ran to his house and came
\nback after arming himself with the spear in about five
\nminutes and dealt the fatal blow on the front of the lower
\nneck of the deceased which cut through his wind pipe as well
\nas the top part of the heart resulting in his death on the spot
\nand, therefore, it cannot be said that the blow was delivered
\nby the accused\/appellant in self defence or in the course of a
\nsudden quarrel by using whatever weapon he was carrying
\nalong with him or that the deceased suffered the injury in the
\nheat of the moment without their being any knowledge or
\nintention on the part of the accused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                                6                 Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n00<\/span><\/p>\n
10.   On the contrary, from the evidence it appears that after
\nthe sudden fight between the parties was over the appellant
\nran to his house, brought the spear, delivered the blow with
\nconsiderable amount of force on the vital part of the body of
\nthe deceased with the knowledge and intention of causing
\nthe death of the deceased. It is also clear from the facts of
\nthe case that after the parties having been separated and
\npacified and were going their own separate ways, the
\naccused\/appellant with deliberate intent ran to his house and
\ncame back and delivered the fatal blow on a vital part of the
\nbody with the premeditated intent of causing death of the
\ndeceased with the spear.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The judgments of the Supreme Court on which
\nreliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant to contend that in all cases where a single injury is
\ncaused as a result of sudden fight, the case would fall under
\nPart-I or Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC are not applicable
\nto the present case as the facts of the present case clearly
\nindicate that the fatal blow was not delivered by the appellant
\nduring and in the course of a sudden fight which erupted
\nbetween the parties but was delivered after both the parties
\nwere separated and pacified and they started going their
\nseparate ways and that the appellant who was unarmed till
\nthat point of time went to his house, armed himself with a
\nspear, came back and delivered the fatal flow.\n<\/p>\n
12.   The law as to whether in such circumstances the
\noffence is one under Section 302 or Part-I or Part-II of
\nSection 304 of the IPC has been duly summarized by the
\nSupreme Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju alias
\nNagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 and it
\nhas been specifically held in paragraphs 21 and 26 that the
\ncontention that in all cases where the death is on account of
\n                                  7                 Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n00<\/span><\/p>\n
single blow the offence falls under Section 304 and not
\nSection 302 of the IPC cannot be accepted. It was further
\nheld in paragraph 29 :-\n<\/p>\n
             “29. Therefore, the court should proceed to
\n      decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and
\n      caution, as that will decide whether the case falls
\n      under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many
\n      petty or insignificant matters plucking of a fruit,
\n      straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a
\n      rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead
\n      to altercations and group clashes culminating in
\n      deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or
\n      suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There
\n      may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation.
\n      In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other
\n      end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder
\n      where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for
\n      murder by attempting to put forth a case that there
\n      was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to
\n      ensure that the cases of murder punishable under
\n      section 302, are not converted into offences
\n      punishable under section 304 Part I\/II, or cases of
\n      culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are
\n      treated as murder punishable under section 302. The
\n      intention to cause death can be gathered generally
\n      from a combination of a few or several of the
\n      following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of
\n      the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried
\n      by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii)
\n      whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v)
\n      whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel
\n      or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the
\n      incident occurs by chance or whether there was any
\n      pre-meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior
\n      enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii)
\n      whether there was any grave and sudden provocation,
\n      and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether
\n      it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person
\n      inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has
\n      acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the
\n      accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The
\n      above list of circumstances is, of course, not
\n      exhaustive and there may be several other special
\n      circumstances with reference to individual cases
\n      which may throw light on the question of intention. Be
\n      that as it may.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       8              Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>
\n      00<\/span><\/p>\n
      13.      The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
\n      State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264
\n      (supra) is also to the same effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      14.      From the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme
\n      Court it is clear that the Court has to examine the question of
\n      intention in each case with care and caution to decide as to
\n      whether the case falls under Section 302 or Section 304
\n      (Part-I) or (Part-II) of the IPC and while doing so the Court
\n      has to take into consideration the factors mentioned in
\n      paragraph 29 quoted above apart from the other evidence on
\n      record in individual case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      15.      In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law
\n      laid down by the Supreme Court we are of the considered
\n      opinion that the trial Court while analysing the evidence
\n      specifically in paragraphs 19 to 21, has committed no error
\n      as is apparent from the oral and documentary evidence on
\n      record and in recording a conclusion to the effect that the
\n      appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under Section
\n      302 of the IPC. We are also of the considered opinion that
\n      the sentence and conviction imposed upon the appellant are
\n      in accordance with law and the submissions made to the
\n      contrary deserve to be rejected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      16.      In view of the aforesaid, the appeal being sans merit
\n      accordingly is dismissed. The appellant who is in jail, shall
\n      undergo the sentence as imposed upon him by the trial
\n      Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (Rakesh Saksena)                     (R.S.Jha)\n                    Judge                            Judge\n\nmct\n      9   Cr.A.No.2769\/20<\/span>\n00<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 2769\/2000 Ramhit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Saksena & Hon’ble Shri R.S. Jha, JJ. ________________________________________________ Shri Rajneesh Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Prakash Gupta, […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 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\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-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=\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-22T04:13:55+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-22T04:13:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2424,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-22T04:13:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 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":"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 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\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-22T04:13:55+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-22T04:13:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010"},"wordCount":2424,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010","name":"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-22T04:13:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramhit-patel-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramhit Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 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\/158784","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=158784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}