{"id":159120,"date":"1997-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997"},"modified":"2017-05-22T01:06:21","modified_gmt":"2017-05-21T19:36:21","slug":"mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997","title":{"rendered":"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: G.N.Ray.<\/div>\n
Bench: G.N. Ray, Faizan Uddin<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAN, YASHIN, DULI CHAND, BALBIR SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/01\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY, FAIZAN UDDIN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 191 OF 1987
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.192 OF 1987
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.450 OF 1982
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nG.N.RAY. J.\n<\/p>\n
     These appeals  arise out  of the  common Judgment dated
\nOctober 11.  1985 passed  by the  High Court of Rajasthan at
\nJodhpur\t in  D.B.  Criminal  Appeal  No.788  of\t 1974.\tD.B.
\nCriminal Appeal\t No.89\tof  1973  assailing  the  Judgmental
\nSessions Judge.\t Court by  which the appellant Balbir singh.
\nYashin, Duli  Chand and\t Mohan were convicted by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge under  Section 147. 302 read with
\nSection 34 I.P.C. and each of the said accused was sentenced
\nit buffer one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 147
\nand impressment\t for life  under Section  302.\tThe  accused
\nmohan was  further convicted  under Section  404  I.P.C\t and
\nsentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and also
\na fine\tof Rs.500\/-.  In default  of payment of fine further
\nriggers imprisonment  for six months. the learned Additional
\nSessions  Judge\t  directed  that  the  sentences  would\t run
\nconcurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     Against the  said Judgment. there separate appeals were
\npreferred by  the convicted  accused before  the high  Court
\nbeing D.B.  Criminal Appeal  No.785 of\t1974  D.B.  Criminal
\nAppeal No.64  of 1975  and D.B.\t Criminal Appeal  No. 817 of
\n1975. all  the said  appeals were  cussed of  by the  common
\nJudgment sine  Impugned in  these appeals  by dismissing the
\nsaid appeals  and maintaining  the conviction  and sentences
\npassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     On February  24, 1974,  Pw. 1  Surja Ram the brother of
\nthe  deceased\tRam  lacked   F.I.R.  with  Police  Station.
\nSardarsanar, to\t the effect  that at  about  10.00  A.M.  on
\nFebruary 24,  1974 their  was a rumor in the village Mitasar
\nthat a\tdead body was living in the Tail located outside the
\nvillage Mitasar.  According to Surja Ram. P.W.S. Musmat Mail
\nhad identified\tthe dead  body as  then of her husband Ramu.
\nWhen Surja  Ram caused annuity. one told that previous night
\nat about  10 to\t 10.50 the  accused Mohan and another person
\nnot know to her had come to her hours. she had served tea to
\nthose persons and the said persons had told her husband that
\na truck\t of sugar  was standing\t near the  Tail and Ramu had
\ntaken money with him to purchase the supra. Her husband Ramu
\nwent with  the said  persons after taking Rs.200\/- with him.
\nThereafter. Ramu  did not  return to his house but was found
\nto be dead in the Tail on February 24. 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  basis of  the said F.I.R.. a case under Section
\n302 was\t registered by\tthe police and on February 28. 1974.
\nThe police  arrested  the  accused  Balmukand.\tMohan.\tDuli
\nChand. Yashin  and Balbir Singh . It may be stated here that
\nthe accused  Balmukand later  on  became  the  approver\t and
\ndeposed as  PW.12. According  to the  prosecution  case.  on
\nMarch 3. 1974. at the instance of accused Yashin. Police had
\nrecovered a  lathe stated to have been used in the crime and
\non the\tvery same  day at  the instance\t of  other  accused.
\nPolice had  recovered a\t day (sharo edged weapon) alleged to
\nhave been  used in committing the crime. On March 4, 1974. a
\ntest identification  parade was\t held and  Muscat  Mali\t had
\nidentified the\taccused Balbir\tSingh. Balmukand Intended to
\nbecome accorder\t in the\t case and his statement was recorded
\nunder Section  161 Criminal  Procedure Code and on March 13.
\n1974 the  statement of\tBalmukand was recorded under Section
\n164 Criminal  Procedure Code  by the  concerned\t Magistrate.
\nUltimately. on\tMarch 29.  1974 Balmukand  was\tcollared  as
\napprover in the case.\n<\/p>\n
     All the  said four\t accused faced\tthe trial before the
\nlearned Additional  Sessions Judge under Section 147. 302\/3.
\n404 I.P.C.  PW.12 Balmukand.  the add  rover. has deposed to
\nthe effect  that in  the month of January. 1974. about 20 to
\n25 day\tbefore 20th  February,\t1974.  the  said  Balmukand.
\nMohan. Duli  Chand. Yashin  along with\tthree other persons.
\nnamely, Pranav\tRanjan. Kamal  Bhomik  and  Raju  Soni.\t had
\nassembled in  the Nehru\t Park at Sarcarsanar for planning to
\ncommit dacoity.\t It was planned that initially petty acuity.
\nIn that\t meeting  Mohan\t had  mentioned\t about\tone  of\t his
\nrelatives living  in the  village Miramar  who\thad  lot  of
\nsilver and  money. Mohan  had suggested to collect the money
\nfrom the said relative and to kill him put that than was not
\nexecuted because  the absorber\tBalmukand  had\tbacked\tout.
\nBalmukand had  further deposed\tthat on\t February  20.\t1974
\nwhich was a Shivratri day. the accused Mohan. Duli Chand and
\nthe said Balmukand and Balbir Singh pranad Ranjan. Kamal had
\nassembled to celebrate the marriage of Raju Soni in the room
\nof Kamal  Bhomik  which\t is  located  in  the  Johnson\tBulb
\nFactory, Bardarsanar.  All of  them had\t a lot of drinks and
\nRaju Soni  become tiosy\t and vomitted.\tAt that\t time Mohan.
\nYashin. Duli  Chand. the absorber Balmukand and Balbir Singh
\ntame out of the room of Kamal Bhomik and they had decided to
\ngo the\tMiramar for  committing the  dactyl but as they were
\nheavily\t drunk.\t  the  approver\t  and  Duli  Chand  made  an
\nunsuccessful attempt  to start\ta car  standing outside\t the
\nFactory and  all the  said persons  came to the Tail located
\noutside the  said factory  where they made an attempt to rod
\none   but nothing  was  found  from\t him.  According  to
\nBalmukand. Mohan  was armed  with a  Day. Yashin with a lath
\nand Balbir  Singh with a bestow. After an hour or so. Yashin
\nand Balmukand went to their respective houses out Duli Chand
\nand Balbir  Singh had goner to the house of the because Ramu
\ngritted in the village Miramar. It is said that Ramu and his
\nwife had  served the  said persons  with tea and so they did
\nnot decide  to rod  Ramu but  the said persons had told Ramu
\nthat within a day of two. they would be getting one cruet of
\nsugar and asked him to keep the money ready.\n<\/p>\n
     The approver further  that in February 23. 1974, at
\nabout 6.00  P.M. Balmukand.  Yashin. Duli  Chand and  Balbir
\nSingh assembled\t at the\t house of  the other  accused  Mohan
\nwhere they  had drinks\tand meal. The approver Balmukand had
\nbrought two  bicycles one  belonging to\t him and  other from
\nPranav Ranjan  and  he\talso  brought  one  cost  from\thim.
\nAccording  to\tBalmukand.  Third  curve  was  arcaded\tfrom
\nGiranar. On  the said  bicycles they had gone to the village
\nMiramar\t at  about  10\tto  10.30  P.M.\t the  accused  Mohan
\nentreated them\tto commit  dactyl on  Ramu. Balmukand.\tDuli
\nChand and  Yashin stayed  pack at  the tail  of the  village
\nMiramar and  the accosted Mohan and Balbir Singh went to the
\nhouse of  Ramu to  bring Ramu  there. At  the house  of Sam.
\nMohan and  Balbir Singh\t were treated  with tea\t Mohan their
\ntold Ramu that near the Tail of the Village Miramar. a truck
\nload of sugar was standing and Ramu should take money to day
\nsugar. thereafter, Ramu took a sum of Rs.200\/- and went with
\nthen where  the three  persons were  within. Duli Chand then
\ntold Ramu  that a Deed had come and thereafter the tract had
\nbeen sent away. The approver Balmukand had also deposed that
\napprover encircled  Ramu and on Mohan saying that work would
\nbe started immediately, Balbir Singh had caught hold of Ramu
\nfrom benign  and Duli Chand gave lathe blow to the deceased.
\nThe said  approver had deposed to the effect that Mohan also
\nstarted inflicting  blows on  Rampant Ramu  fell  down.\t The
\napprover at  that time\thad caught  hold of the legs of Ramu
\nand Duli  Chand inflicted blows with Day. Mohan tried to cut
\nthe throat  of Ramu  out as  he could  not go so. Uashin had
\nheaded him  in cutting\tthe throat of Ramu. According to the
\napprover. the  accused Balmukand  and the  said approver did
\nnot inflict any injury to the deceased. The approver further
\ndeposed that after seeing that the throat of Ramu is cut. he
\nfelt uneasy  and he raised a false alarm that some light was
\ncoming from  the side  of village  Miramar. Thereafter. they
\nleft the  side of village Miramar. Thereafter. they left the
\nscene of  occurrence in\t great nasty  and came on the nearby
\nroad. The  approver further deposed that Mohan had taken out
\nRs.200\/- from the pocket of deceased Ramu. The approver also
\ndeposed that  after they reached the road side. they started
\nmoving towards\tSarcarsanar and\t when they  had covered\t the
\ndistance of  about 2  1\/2 miles\t from  the  Tal\t of  village
\nMitasar. They  saw a car coming from the village Mitasar. At
\nthat time.  they come  arcades two  persons who\t were coming
\nfrom the  village Sawal.  One of those two persons had aside
\nMohan as  to wherefrom\tthey had  been coming  and Mohan and
\nreplied that  they were coming after doing some Banker work.
\nAll the\t five persons  thereafter returned to Sarcarsanar in
\nthree separate groups on three bicycles.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Lalit.\t learned senor\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant Balbir Singh in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1986. has
\nsubmitted  that\t the  prosecution  case\t was  sought  to  be
\nestablished on\tthe basis  of the  deposition of  one single
\nwitness. namely,  the approver Balmukand PW.12. Mr.Lalit has
\nsubmitted that\twhere a\t case is sought to be established on
\nthe basis  of a single witness. It must be ensured that such
\nwitness is  wholly reliable.  Mr.Lalit\thad  contended\tthat
\nPW.12  Balmukand   is  an   approver  and  his\tevidence  is
\nessentially tainted. PW.12 attempted to minimise his role as
\nmuch as\t possible and  made an\tattempt to ascribe the roles
\nbegging played\tbe the\tother  accused.\t Mr.Lalit  had\talso
\nsubmitted that\tthe principal  act of  causing injury on the
\ndeceased has  been ascribe  to Mohan. Yashin and Duli Chand.
\nIt had\tbeen submitted\tby Mr.Lalit that PW.12 Balmukand has
\nmade an attempt to give an impression that he was an uniting
\nparticipant and\t he had\t played a  very minor  rice so as to
\nmake himself  a conspirator.  According to Mr.Lalit. it will
\nbe unsafe to rely on such evidence of the approver PW.12 The
\nsaid PW.12  had also  involved two  others.  namely.  Pranad
\nRanjan and  Raju Soni  although they were not present at the
\ntime of\t commission of\tthe Of fence. PW.12 had also deposed
\nthat he\t did not get money out of the dacoity and killing of
\nRamu. Such evidence cannot be accepted being contrary to the
\npurpose of  conspiracy and  commission of  the of  fence for
\ncollecting  money   from  the  deceased.  Mr.Lait  has\talso
\nsubmitted that\tthere is contradiction about the weapon used
\nto commit  the under  of Ramu because both day and  were
\nmentioned.  So\t far  as   the\tappellant  Balbir  singh  is
\nconcerned. Mr.\tLalit has submitted that Balbir Singh had no
\nweagon and  he had  not inflicts any injury on the person of
\nthe deceased.  Mr. Lalit has also submitted that it has come
\nout in\tthe evidence  that golden ear rings on the person of
\nthe because  had not  been removed by the accused. Such fact
\nraises serious about whether Ramu was killed for looting the
\nvaluables possessed  by him at the time of commission of the
\ncrime.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Lalit has also submitted that the identification of
\nthe appellant  Balbir singh  by the  widow of  the deceased.
\nnamely, Pw.3  does  not\t inspire  confidence  and  the\ttest
\nidentification parade  was also\t not properly heal. Mr Lalit
\nhas  submitted\t that\tPw.15\thad   concocted\t  the\ttest
\nidentification parade\ton March 4. 1974. The said Pw.19 had
\ndeposed that  11 persons  per liked with the under trial and
\nPw.3 Muscat  Mall Identified  the accused Balbir Singh after
\ntaking two  rounds., the  said Pw.19 did not record the ages
\nof the\tpersons who  were mixed with the accused out he only
\nstated that  they were\talmost of the age of the accused. He
\nalso could not any scar hear the eve and whether any of them
\nwas of the eight of 5 6. Pw.3 has however. admitted that the
\npersons who were mixed with the accused were all taller than
\nthe accused. Mr. Lalit has submitted that a scar on the fact
\nof a  person is\t rarely noticed\t by the a village rustic who
\ndid not\t know the  person beforehand and only an occasion to
\nsee just for sometime on the day of the occurrence. Moreover
\nunless persons\tof similar age and similar eight and more of
\nless of similar stature and appearance are mixed up with the
\naccused. no  reliance should be placed on the identification
\nmade in\t the test  identification parade. Therefore. benefit
\nof about  should be  given in flavor of the appellant Balbir
\nSingh. Mr.Lalit\t has also  submitted that  the deposition of
\nPw.12 is  also falsified  by the  medical evidence. Although
\nPw.12 has  deposed that\t a lalit  injury was  caused on\t the
\ndeceased out  from the\tmedical evidence. It transpires that
\nall the\t injured noticed  on the person of the deceased were
\nincised wounds.\t Mr.Lalit has  also submitted  that there is
\ncontradiction  in   the\t depositions  of  the  investigating
\nOfficer and  Pw.12 the\tapprover about\tthe  date  when\t the
\napprovers  statement   was  recorded.\tIn   the   aforesaid
\ncircumstances. It  would not  be proper\t the base conviction
\nagainst the  appellant and other accused on the basis of the
\ntestimony of the approver (Pw.12).\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing for the other
\nappellants as animus curies. has also supported the
\nsubmissions made by Mr.Lalit. Mr.Goyal has submitted that
\nthere are contradictions in the deposition of the approver
\nPw.12 with the statements previously made by him. Such fact
\nwas notices by the trial court. The learned counsel has also
\nsubmitted that the approver Balmukand had made different
\nsubmissions with regard to the weapons used by the
\nappellants. Mr.Goyal has also submitted that the deposition
\nof the approver Pw.12 about the injuries on the chest of the
\ndebased in false and the same is not supported by
\nDr.S.L.Bundala Pw.8. Mr.Goyal has also submitted that it is
\nnot unlikely that the approver had himself Ramu and made
\nfalse statements Implicating the accused in order to save
\nhimself. Mr.Goyal has submitted that although the approver
\nhad surrendered before the police on February 28. 1974. his
\nstatement was receded on March 9 and March 12.1974.
\nBalmukand has stated to the police that he was willing to
\nbecome approver and he made confessional statement before
\nthe Magistrate on March 13. 1974. Mr.Goyal has submitted
\nthat there are discrepancies in his depositions and the
\nstatements made under Section 164 Criminal Procedure code.
\nIt has also been submitted by Mr.goyal that according to the
\nprosecution case and also according to the deposition the
\napprover the deceased was o friend of Mohan. Five persons
\nincluding the approver made a conspiracy to kill the
\ndeceased to rod only Rs.200\/- by that process to get Rs.40\/-
\nonly in their respective share. It is unbelievable that
\nMohan should kill his friend  only for a sum of Rs.40\/- when
\nhe had gone to the house of the deceased and was noticed by
\nthe wife of the deceased. The learned counsel has submitted
\nthat the projection case could not have been established
\nbeyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentences
\npassed against the appellants are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
\ncircumstances of  the case  and the  Judgments passed by the
\ncourts below.  It appears  to us  that the  approver has not
\nmade statements\t to exculpate  him out\thas clearly  coerced
\nthat he\t was party  to the conspiracy and on the date of the
\nincident was  waiting hear  the Tall  when Balbir  Singh and
\nMohan had  been sent  to bring\tRamu with money so that Ramu
\nwould be murdered and the money would be looted. he had also
\ndeposed that he himself did not inflict injury but he caught
\nhold of\t the legs of the deceased when the deceased was done
\nto death.  So far  as the  identification of Balbir Singh by
\nthe widow  of the  deceased on\tconcerted. We not think that
\nsuch identification  is to  be discarded  simply because the
\nheight of the accused was less than the persons with whom he
\nwas liked  up or  he had  a scar mark. Fateh Lal (Pw.19) has
\ndeposed that  the persons with whom the accused Balbir Singh
\nwas liked up were almost of the same age and after going two
\nrounds, the widow had identified Balbir. The contention that
\nno reliance  shall be  placed on  the evidence\tof  approver
\nbecause the  golden ear\t rings were  not taken\taway by\t the
\naccused even  though they  had committed the murder for gain
\ncannot be  accepted. It\t may be\t indicated here that because
\nPw.12, the  approver had  raised an  alarm that\t some lights
\nwere seen  from the  village side. The accused had hurriedly
\nleft place of occurrence and Mohan had only removed Rs.200\/-
\nfrom the  pocket of  the deceased.  The\t deposition  of\t the
\napprover  Balmukand  that  a  car  came\t from  the  side  of
\nLookaransar and\t two persons  also saw\tthem and one of such
\npersons enquired  of Mohan  as to  wherefrom they  had\tbeen
\ncoming. Stands fully corroborated from the testimony of Pw.4
\nBegan Ram  and Pw.5  Magoj Singh.  Both the  witnesses\thave
\nstated that  they alighted  from the  bus at  village  Bawai
\nAfter covering\tsome distance  for coming  to their  village
\nMitasar, they  saw five\t persons. At that time. not car came
\nfrom the  side of  Loonkaransar. They  had also deposed that
\nthe said  persons had  three bicycles  with them.  The\tsaid
\nwitnesses have\talso deposed  that they could identify Mohan
\nand Yashin  but could  not identify  rest of  three  persons
\nbecause the others were little away from them.\n<\/p>\n
     In our view. the deposition of the approver Pw.12 about
\nthe injuries  caused  on  the  person  of  the\tdeceased  is
\nsubstantially corroborated  from  the  medial  evidence\t and
\nabsence of any injury caused by the plant weapon of be lathe
\non the\tperson of  the deceased\t cannot be held to be such a
\ncontradiction in  the deposition  of Pw.12  for\t which\tsuch
\ndeposition is  liable  to  be  discarded.  We  have  already
\nindicated that\tfive persons  were seen by Pas 4 and 5. Such
\nevidence tallies  with the  deposition of Pw.12 that besides
\nthe approved.  there were other four accused. The deposition
\nof Pw  12 also\tstands corroborated  that Pw  4 and  5 could
\nidentify Mohan\tand Yashin  and had  enquired of  them as to
\nfrom where  they had been coming then. Such deposition fully
\nlends support  to the  deposition given\t by Pw.12,  The High
\nCourt  has   indicated\tcogent\treasons\t for  affirming\t the
\nconviction and\tsentences passed  against the appellants and
\nwe do  not find\t any reason to interfere with the concurrent
\nfindings made  by the  courts below  against the appellants.
\nThese  appeals.\t therefore.  fall  and\tare  dismissed.\t The
\nappellants were\t released on pail during the pungency of the
\nappeals. They are directed to be taken into custody to serve
\nout the\t sentences passed  against them.  Their\t bail  bonds
\nstand canceled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 Author: G.N.Ray. Bench: G.N. Ray, Faizan Uddin PETITIONER: MOHAN, YASHIN, DULI CHAND, BALBIR SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/01\/1997 BENCH: G.N. RAY, FAIZAN UDDIN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 191 OF […]<\/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-159120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 - 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\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-21T19:36:21+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T19:36:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\"},\"wordCount\":3160,\"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\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\",\"name\":\"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T19:36:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 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":"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 - 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\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-21T19:36:21+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997","datePublished":"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T19:36:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997"},"wordCount":3160,"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\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997","name":"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T19:36:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-yashin-duli-chand-balbir-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir … vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 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\/159120","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=159120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}