{"id":159433,"date":"2000-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000"},"modified":"2017-12-03T10:04:45","modified_gmt":"2017-12-03T04:34:45","slug":"gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sethi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, J., R.P. Sethi, J.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGULAM HUSSAIN &amp; ANR. , SHABNAM , ROSHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF DELHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.  Thomas, J.  &amp; R.P.  Sethi, J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant\tMs.Shabnam  is\tthe  wife,  appellant  Gulam<br \/>\nHussain,  is  the  father-in-law, appellant  Roshan  is\t the<br \/>\nbrother-in-law\t and   appellant  Shakil    Ahmad   is\t the<br \/>\nco-brother-of the deceased Islamuddin who died on 13.10.1989<br \/>\nof the burn injuries caused on his person by the appellants.<br \/>\nUpon  conclusion  of  the  trial  the  court  of  Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Delhi convicted the appellants under Section<br \/>\n302  IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life<br \/>\nand  to\t pay  a fine of Rs.500\/- each.\t The  appeals  filed<br \/>\nagainst\t the  conviction and sentence were dismissed by\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  of Delhi vide the judgments impugned  in  these<br \/>\nappeals which have been preferred by the appellants from the<br \/>\njail.  We have heard Shri Jagdev Singh Manhas, amicus curaie<br \/>\nappointed and Shri K.N.\t Shukla, Senior counsel who appeared<br \/>\nfor  the respondents.  According to the prosecution FIR\t was<br \/>\nregistered  on the basis of statement of the deceased  which<br \/>\nwas recorded after he was admitted in LNJP Hospital.  In the<br \/>\nstatement  Islamuddin  had  stated that he  was\t married  to<br \/>\nappellant  Shabnam,  daughter  of Gulam\t Hussain  about\t 5-6<br \/>\nmonths\tbefore\tthe  date of occurrence.  When\the  came  to<br \/>\nJhuggi No.215, near Public Latrine, Sanjay Amar Colony, Boat<br \/>\nBridge,\t Yamuna Pushta about 7-8 days before the  occurrence<br \/>\nto  take  back Ms.Shabnam, a quarrel ensued between him\t and<br \/>\nShabnam\t because  of  her having brought with her  gold\t and<br \/>\nsilver\tornaments worth Rs.5,000\/-.  As Shabnam was not sent<br \/>\nalong with him he slept for three nights in a tea shop which<br \/>\nwas situated on the corner of the house of his father-in-law<br \/>\nand  he was not allowed to live in Jhuggi with other members<br \/>\nof Gulam Hussain.  On 13.10.1989 at about 3.30 a.m.  all the<br \/>\nthree  male  accused came on the spot where he was  sleeping<br \/>\nand woke him up.  Shakil Ahmad caught hold of his both hands<br \/>\nfrom  behind.\tHis  father-in-law asked  Shabnam  to  bring<br \/>\nkerosene  oil  which  she brought in a small  container\t and<br \/>\nhanded\tover the same to her father who poured keresene\t oil<br \/>\non Islamuddin forcibly and Roshan thereafter set him ablaze.<br \/>\nThe neighbourers came there and tried to extinguish the fire<br \/>\nwhile crying &#8220;Bachao-Bachao (save-save), he reached near the<br \/>\niron  bridge  where  a policeman got him seated in  a  three<br \/>\nwheeler\t scooter  for  being taken to  the  hospital.\tPW22<br \/>\nBalwan\tSingh is stated to have recorded his statement which<br \/>\nwas later on treated as his dying declaration.\tTo prove the<br \/>\ncase  against  the appellants, the prosecution examined\t PW1<br \/>\nConstable  Rajbir  Singh,  PW2 Constable Naubat\t Singh,\t PW3<br \/>\nConstable  Jit Singh, PW4 lady constable Tara, PW5 Constable<br \/>\nKrishan\t Pal,  PW6 Inspector Davinder Singh, PW7  ASI  Budhi<br \/>\nSingh,\tPW8  Shashi Dharan, PW9 Nannay Khan, PW10  Inspector<br \/>\nNiranjan  Singh,  PW11\tConstable Balbir Singh,\t PW12  Mohd.<br \/>\nSatter,\t PW13  Laloo, PW14 Dr.B.N.  Acharya, PW15  Constable<br \/>\nKrishan\t Kumar, PW16 Dr.George Paul, PW17 Constable  Krishan<br \/>\nKumar,\tPW18 Aslam, PW19 S,N.  Shai, PW20 Constable Surinder<br \/>\nSingh,\tPW21  Head  Constable Prem Pal Singh, and  PW22\t ASI<br \/>\nBalwan\tSingh.\tBesides oral testimony of the witnesses, the<br \/>\nprosecution  relied upon two written dying declarations i.e.<br \/>\nExhibit PW19\/A and Exhibit PW22\/B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Despite\t various opportunities granted, the accused did\t not<br \/>\nlead  any  evidence.   Learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants has vehemently argued that as there was no direct<br \/>\nevidence  in the case it was not proper for the courts below<br \/>\nto  convict and sentence the appellants merely relying\tupon<br \/>\nthe  dying  declaration\t which, according to  him,  was\t not<br \/>\ncorroborated   by   any\t other\t witness  in  its   material<br \/>\nparticulars.   He  has\tfurther\t contended  that  the  dying<br \/>\ndeclarations\thaving\t been\t  recorded   in\t  suspicious<br \/>\ncircumstances  cannot  be  held to have\t been  proved.\t Per<br \/>\ncontra,\t the  learned  Senior  Advocate\t appearing  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  submitted that the dying declarations have\tbeen<br \/>\nduly  recorded and the material facts corroborated by  other<br \/>\nevidence  produced in the case.\t Exhibit PW22\/B was recorded<br \/>\nby  PW22  ASI Balwan Singh in the hospital on 14.10.1989  at<br \/>\nabout  6.30  a.m.  after getting an opinion from the  Doctor<br \/>\nthat  the injured was fit for statement.  The endorsement of<br \/>\nthe  doctor is recorded as Exhibit PW22\/A.  Learned  counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the appellants submitted that as the statement<br \/>\nwas  recorded by the investigating officer which was treated<br \/>\nas  FIR, the same could not be treated as dying\t declaration<br \/>\nand  was  inadmissible in evidence.  The submission  has  no<br \/>\nsubstance  because  at the time of recording  the  statement<br \/>\nPW22  Balwan  Singh  did  not possess  the  capacity  of  an<br \/>\ninvestigating officer as the investigation had not commenced<br \/>\nby  then.   Such  a  statement can be  treated\tas  a  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration  which  is admissible in evidence under  Section<br \/>\n32(1)  of  the Evidence Act.  After critically scanning\t the<br \/>\nstatement  of  PW22 ASI Balwan Singh and details of  Exhibit<br \/>\nPW22\/B,\t we  have no hesitation to hold that  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nstatement  was\tvoluntarily made by the deceased  which\t was<br \/>\nreduced\t to  writing and have rightly been treated as  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration after the death of the maker.  Section 32 of the<br \/>\nEvidence  Act  is  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of<br \/>\nexclusion  of  hearsey evidence and the statement made by  a<br \/>\nperson\twritten or verbal of relevant facts after his  death<br \/>\nis  admissible in evidence if it refers to the cause of\t his<br \/>\ndeath  or  any\tcircumstances  of  the\ttransactions   which<br \/>\nresulted in his death.\tTo attract the provisions of Section<br \/>\n32,  the prosecution is required to prove that the statement<br \/>\nwas  made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found  or<br \/>\nwhose  attendance  cannot be procured without any amount  of<br \/>\ndelay  or expense or he is incapable of giving evidence\t and<br \/>\nthat  such  statement  had  been   made\t under\tany  of\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  specified  in  sub-sections  (1)\t to  (8)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 32 of the Evidence Act.  It cannot be disputed that<br \/>\nIslamuddin  who made a statement PW22\/B has died and in\t his<br \/>\ndeposition  he\thas  referred  to  the\tcircumstances  which<br \/>\nultimately proved to be the cause of his death.\t Nothing has<br \/>\nbeen  pointed out by the defence side which could create any<br \/>\ndoubt  in our mind regarding the making or admissibility  in<br \/>\nevidence of the statement Exhibit PW22\/B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Assailing  dying declaration PW19\/A, the learned counsel has<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t as  the  witnesses   to  it,  namely,\tPW12<br \/>\nMohd.Satter  and  PW18\tAslam who are real brothers  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  have\tnot  supported the prosecution\tversion\t and<br \/>\nthere  existed other circumstances which created  suspicion,<br \/>\nit  was not safe to hold the said dying declaration to\thave<br \/>\nbeen  proved.  It is submitted that the SDM has not assigned<br \/>\nany reason in Exhibit PW19\/A for not recording the statement<br \/>\nhimself.  However, during the trial he has submitted that as<br \/>\none  of\t his  finger  was injured,  he\tdictated  the  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration to PW22 Balwan Singh.  PW22 Balwan Singh in turn<br \/>\nhas stated that he had not recorded PW19\/A.  Learned counsel<br \/>\nalso  drew our attention to the two aforesaid statements and<br \/>\nurged  that  as on the face of it PW22\/B and PW19\/A  do\t not<br \/>\nappear\tto  have  been written by one and the  same  person,<br \/>\nreliance  upon PW19\/A and by treating it a dying declaration<br \/>\nwould be unsafe.  Accepting such a contention of the accused<br \/>\npersons,  the  High  Court  in this  regard  had  concluded:<br \/>\n&#8220;Thus,\tthe statements of both PWs 12 &amp; 18 coupled with\t the<br \/>\nobservation  made by the above fully support the  submission<br \/>\nreferred  to  above  advanced on behalf of  the\t accused  in<br \/>\nregard\tto  Ex.PW19\/A not having been made by  the  deceased<br \/>\nbefore\tPW19.  Trial Court had acted erroneously in  relying<br \/>\nupon  Ex.PW19\/A.   It has to be excluded from  consideration<br \/>\nfor recording the finding of guilt against the accused.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We  also agree with the findings of the High Court and\tfeel<br \/>\nthat  the  prosecution\thas failed to  fully  establish\t the<br \/>\nrecording  of  Exhibit\tPW19\/A.\t  However, in  view  of\t our<br \/>\nfinding\t that  Exhibit PW22\/B has been proved to be a  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration  of\t the  deceased we do not find  any  inherent<br \/>\nweakness  in the case of the prosecution which would per  se<br \/>\nentitle\t the  appellants to acquittal.\tIt is  well  settled<br \/>\nthat  dying  declaration must be dealt with caution for\t the<br \/>\nreason\tthat  the  maker  of  the  statement  had  not\tbeen<br \/>\nsubjected  to cross-examination.  There is no rule of law or<br \/>\nrule  of prudence that dying declaration cannot be  accepted<br \/>\nunless\tit  is\tcorroborated.  [Khushan Rao  vs.   State  of<br \/>\nBombay\t1958  SCR  552;\t  Munna Raja vs.   State  of  Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh\t 1976 (2) SCC 764].  However, as prosecution is left<br \/>\nwith  only  one dying declaration, namely, PW22\/B,  we\tfeel<br \/>\nthat in the instant case it would not be safe to convict the<br \/>\nappellants  only  on  the  basis   of  the  aforesaid  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration   unless   corroborated    in   other   material<br \/>\nparticulars.  We have found sufficient corroboration in this<br \/>\ncase.\tThe  contents  of the dying declaration are  to\t the<br \/>\neffect that the deceased was married to Ms.Shabnam, daughter<br \/>\nof  Gulam  Hussain, resident of Jhuggi No.215,\tnear  Public<br \/>\nLatrine,  Sanjay  Amar\tColony, Boat Bridge,  Yamuna  Pushta<br \/>\nabout  5-  6 months before the occurrence.  7-8 days  before<br \/>\nthe  date  of  making  the  statement he  had  come  at\t the<br \/>\nresidnece of Gulam Hussain to take his wife back.  After 2-3<br \/>\ndays  of  his coming he had a quarrel with his wife  because<br \/>\nshe  had brought gold and silver ornaments worth  Rs.5,000\/-<br \/>\nwith her from his house without his consent.  He spent three<br \/>\nnights\tat  a  tea  shop  in  front  of\t the  house  of\t his<br \/>\nfather-in-law  as  he was not allowed to stay in  the  house<br \/>\nwith other members of Gulam Hussain.  On that day he went to<br \/>\nsleep  in the house of his father-in-law who had called\t him<br \/>\nthere.\t He  slept on a &#8220;Rehari&#8221; (moving-cart)\toutside\t the<br \/>\nhouse  of  his\tfather-in-law.\t At  about  3.30  a.m.\t his<br \/>\nco-brother Shakil Ahmad, his father-in-law Gulam Hussain and<br \/>\nbrother-in-law\tRoshan\tcame there and woke him up.   Shakil<br \/>\nAhmad,\tappellant  caught  hold of his both the\t hands\tfrom<br \/>\nbehind.\t  His father-in-law asked Shabnam to bring  kerosene<br \/>\nwhich  she  brought in a small container and handed over  to<br \/>\nher father who poured it upon with the intention to burn him<br \/>\nand  Roshan  set  him ablaze.  He raised  alarm\t upon  which<br \/>\nneighbourers  came  there and tried to extinguish the  fire.<br \/>\nHe  ran\t in flames crying &#8220;Bachao-Bachao&#8221; (save- save)\tnear<br \/>\niron  bridge.  He met with one policeman whom he stated that<br \/>\nhis  in-laws have burnt him.  The policeman made him seat in<br \/>\na  three  wheeler scooter and brought him to  the  hospital.<br \/>\nThe  material  facts of the case as disclosed in  the  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration  that (i) the deceased was married to Ms.Shabnam<br \/>\nwith whom the relations had been strained;  (ii) the in-laws<br \/>\nof the deceased were not permitting his wife to go back with<br \/>\nhim;  (iii) he had come from his village in Bijnor, District<br \/>\nof   U.P.;   (iv)he  was  set\tablaze\tby  his\t in-laws  in<br \/>\nconsequence  of\t which he ultimately died;  stand proved  by<br \/>\nthe  prosecution.   PW2 has corroborated the version of\t the<br \/>\ndying  declaration by stating that he had seen the  deceased<br \/>\nin  burnt  conditions  with  cries &#8216;Jala  diya,\t jala  diya,<br \/>\nbachao-bachao&#8217;\t(burnt-burnt,  save-save).  Upon enquiry  he<br \/>\nhad  told  him that he had been burnt by his  in-laws.\t PW5<br \/>\nKrishan Pal Singh has stated that from the place of incident<br \/>\nASI Balwan Singh had seized one small container of kerosene,<br \/>\none match-box containing match sticks, one purse, two sheets<br \/>\nof  paper and one shirt in burnt conditions.  PW9 Nanhe Khan<br \/>\nthough declared hostile has admitted that at about 2.30 a.m.<br \/>\nwhen  he was going to fetch water for his child, he had seen<br \/>\nthe deceased running with his clothes on flames.  PW13 Laloo<br \/>\nwho was also declared hostile has admitted that he had heard<br \/>\nnoise  and saw Islamuddin in flames.  Later he informed\t the<br \/>\naccused\t persons  that\tthe man in flames was  running\tfrom<br \/>\ntheir  side of Jhuggi.\tPW16 Dr.George Paul has stated\tthat<br \/>\nin  his opinion the deceased had died due to septicaemia and<br \/>\ntoxaemia  and  that his body had burn injuries.\t  PW19\tS.N.<br \/>\nShai,  the  then  SDM  has  referred  to  the  recording  of<br \/>\nstatement  Exhibit PW19\/A, the narration of which is  almost<br \/>\nidential as detailed in Exhibit PW22\/B.\t It is worthwhile to<br \/>\nmention\t that all the four accused were arrested immediately<br \/>\nafter  recording  of  the  statement  of  the  deceased\t and<br \/>\nregistration  of  the case against them.  It is,  therefore,<br \/>\nevident that the material facts stated in the Exhibit PW22\/B<br \/>\nhave   been  corroborated  by\tvarious\t witnesses  and\t the<br \/>\nattending circumstances of the case.  Upon close scrutiny we<br \/>\nhave  no  hesitation  to  hold that  the  dying\t declaration@@<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t JJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nExhibit\t PW22\/B\t is the truthful version of  the  occurrence@@<br \/>\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nwhich narrates the circumstances leading to the death of its<br \/>\nmaker.\tAs the said statement was made immediately after the<br \/>\noccurrence,  there is no reason to doubt about its  veracity<br \/>\nand  correctness.   The circumstances surrounding the  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration  are clear and convincing which we have found to<br \/>\nbe  corroborated  in  material\t particulars.\tThe  general<br \/>\ncriticism of the defence cannot, in any way, be made a basis<br \/>\nfor  discarding\t the aforesaid statement which was later  on<br \/>\nrightly\t treated  as dying declaration of the deceased.\t  On<br \/>\nproof  of a valid dying declaration it has to be  determined<br \/>\nas  to\tall or any of the accused are guilty of offence\t for<br \/>\nwhich  they have been charged, convicted and sentenced.\t  It<br \/>\nappears\t to  us\t that role of Ms.Shabnam is not\t such  which<br \/>\ncould be made a basis of her holding a common intention with<br \/>\nthe  other  accused  persons  in  committing  the  crime  of<br \/>\nmurdering  Islamuddin.\tWithout declaring as to what was  to<br \/>\nbe done with the kerosene, her father had asked her to bring<br \/>\nit which she did apparently without knowing for what purpose<br \/>\nthe  kerosene had been obtained by her father.\tIt cannot be<br \/>\ndenied\tthat  kerosene might have been obtained to  put\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  in fear or force him to go away from the house  of<br \/>\nhis  in-laws  where he was stated to have been\tstaying\t for<br \/>\nabout  7-8  days  before the date of occurrence.   No  other<br \/>\novert act is attributed to Ms.Shabnam who is the unfortunate<br \/>\nwidow  of  the\tdeceased.   Similarly\twe  find  that\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  has not proved its case beyond doubt so far  as<br \/>\nShakil\tAhmad  is  concerned.  He is the co-brother  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and is stated to have caught hold of both the hands<br \/>\nof  the deceased.  If the deceased was intended to be killed<br \/>\nby setting him on fire, it could have been done while he was<br \/>\nasleep.\t  There\t was no reason of waking him up which  could<br \/>\nhave necessitated catching hold of his hands by Shakil Ahmad<br \/>\napparently  to over-power him.\tThe mere presence of  Shakil<br \/>\nAhmad  would have prompted the deceased to mention his\tname<br \/>\nin  the\t statement but the said appellant cannot be held  to<br \/>\nhave  been proved to be sharing the alleged common intention<br \/>\nof  causing  the death of Islamuddin.  It is true  that\t the<br \/>\nintention to commit murder could emerge at any time but such<br \/>\nintention  has to be gathered from the circumstances of each<br \/>\ncase.\tIt  cannot be excluded that Shakil Ahmad might\thave<br \/>\naccompanied  his in-laws to see that his co-brother does not<br \/>\ncreate\tany problem by remaining as an unwanted guest in and<br \/>\naround\ttheir  house for 7-8 days.  There is no evidence  on<br \/>\nrecord\tto  suggest  that any of the accused  had  indicated<br \/>\ntheir  intention  to  kill the deceased.  We feel  that\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  has failed to prove its case against appellants<br \/>\nMs.Shabnam  and\t Shakil Ahmad beyond all reasonable  doubts.<br \/>\nIn  our\t opinion  these two appellants are entitled  to\t the<br \/>\nbenefit\t of  doubt.   So far as Gulam Hussain  and  his\t son<br \/>\nRoshan\tare  concerned, the prosecution has proved its\tcase<br \/>\nbeyond all reaosnable doubts that they had shared the common<br \/>\nintention  to kill the deceased in furtherance of which\t one<br \/>\npoured the kerosene oil on deceased&#8217;s body and the other lit<br \/>\nhim on fire.  Under the circumstances Appeal No.782\/98 filed<br \/>\nby  Shabnam  is\t allowed  and  Appeal  No.781\/98  is  partly<br \/>\nallowed,  so  far  as accused Shakil Ahmad is  concerned  by<br \/>\nsetting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed<br \/>\nagainst\t them.\tThey are acquitted and directed to be set at<br \/>\nliberty\t immediately  unless  required in some\tother  case.<br \/>\nThere  is  no merit in Appeal No.783\/98 filed by Roshan\t and<br \/>\nAppeal\tNo.781\/98  so  far  as appellant  Gulam\t Hussain  is<br \/>\nconcerned, and the same are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: K.T. Thomas, J., R.P. Sethi, J. PETITIONER: GULAM HUSSAIN &amp; ANR. , SHABNAM , ROSHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF DELHI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/08\/2000 BENCH: K.T. Thomas, J. &amp; R.P. Sethi, J. [&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-159433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , ... vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 - 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\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , ... vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-03T04:34:45+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T04:34:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2772,\"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\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , ... vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T04:34:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , ... vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 - 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\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , ... vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-03T04:34:45+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T04:34:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000"},"wordCount":2772,"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\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000","name":"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , ... vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T04:34:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-hussain-anr-shabnam-vs-state-of-delhi-on-4-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulam Hussain &amp; Anr. , Shabnam , &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/159433","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=159433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}