{"id":163305,"date":"1981-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981"},"modified":"2015-02-09T04:58:14","modified_gmt":"2015-02-08T23:28:14","slug":"sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981","title":{"rendered":"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1379, \t\t 1981 SCR (3) 352<\/div>\n
Author: B Islam<\/div>\n
Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSONE LAL & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/04\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1379\t\t  1981 SCR  (3) 352\n 1981 SCC  (2) 531\t  1981 SCALE  (1)604\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian Penal  Code 1860, Ss. 302, 307, 323 read with S.\n149-Enmity between  parties of\tthe  accused  and  deceased-\nAltercation and\t assault-Accused receiving  injuries-Accused\nwhether aggressors-Whether  entitled  to  right\t of  private\ndefence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The prosecution  alleged that there was a long standing\nenmity\tbetween\t  the  parties\t of  the  deceased  and\t the\nappellants. There  was a vacant plot of land in front of the\nflour mill  and residence  of PW.  1. The appellants started\nthrowing rubbish  on this  piece of  land. PW.1 and his son,\nthe deceased,  objected to this. On the fateful day at about\nnoon  there  was  an  altercation  in  connection  with\t the\nthrowing of  rubbish,  and  at\tabout  8  p.m.\tone  of\t the\nappellants armed  with a  lathi went  to the  flour mill and\nchallenged PW.\t1 and  his companions.\tAt the\tcall of this\nappellant, the\tother appellants  who were  armed with\tgun,\npistol, lathi  and spear  arrived at the spot. PW. 1 managed\nto snatch  the spear from the hands of one of the appellants\nand started  giving blows  to the  assailants  in  order  to\ndefend himself.\t At that  time two  of the  appellants fired\ntheir gun  and pistol  as a result of which the son of PW. 1\nreceived injuries, to which he succumbed while being removed\nto the Police Station. The defence of the appellants was one\nof alibi  and that  the offence\t had not  taken place on the\nland of PW. 1.\n     The appellants were tried before the Sessions Judge who\nconvicted and  sentenced them under Sections 302-307 and 323\nread with Section 149 of the Penal Code.\n     The High Court dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the\ntrial  Court   and  found  that\t the  prosecution  case\t was\nestablished by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and\nthat the  defence version  of the case had to be rejected on\naccount of  the inconsistent  pleas made  by the  appellants\nbefore the committing court and the Sessions Court.\n     In the  appeal in\tthis Court,  it was  contended\tthat\nthere was no finding by the trial and appellate courts as to\nhow the\t assault initially  started and\t which party was the\naggressor, that\t the prosecution had not explained as to how\nthe\n353\nappellants received  the injuries,  and that  the appellants\nhad the\t right of  private defence  and, therefore, they had\ncommitted no offence.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD:  1.\t The  High   Court  rightly   accepted\t the\nprosecution case  as true and held that the defence case was\nfalse. [356 F]\n     2. The  findings of  the two courts below indicate that\nit was\tthe appellants\twho were the aggressors and that the\noccurrence took\t place on  the land  lying in  front of\t the\nhouse of  PW. 1\t who was  in possession thereof and that the\ndeceased and  PW. 1  had the  right of\tprivate\t defence  of\nproperty and  person and that they exercised that right. The\nappellants who\twere the  aggressors, even  if they received\ninjuries from  the victims  of their aggression, cannot have\nany right  of private  defence. The  findings are  that\t the\ndeceased and PW. 1 were unarmed and that P.W. 1 snatched the\nweapon from  one of  the assailants  and caused\t injuries to\nthem. If  the deceased\tand the\t other prosecution witnesses\nhad been  the aggressors,  PW. 1 would not have come without\nhis licensed gun.\n\t\t\t\t\t  [356 H-357A, 356E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n220 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 9th  January, 1974  of the  Allahabad  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Appeal\t No. 356\/77  connected with  Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 723 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     R. K.  Garg, S.  S. Bhatnagar,  V. J. Francis and Sunil
\nKumar Jain for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     R. K. Bhat for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave has been
\ndirected against  the  judgment\t and  order  passed  by\t the
\nAllahabad High\tCourt dismissing  two appeals  filed by\t the
\nappellants before  it. The  appellants were  convicted under
\nSections 302,  307 and\t323 all read with Section 149 of the
\nPenal Code.  They were\tsentenced to  imprisonment for life,
\neach, under  Section 302\/149,  rigorous imprisonment  for  7
\nyears, each, under Section 307\/149 and rigorous imprisonment
\nfor six\t months, each,\tunder Section  323\/149 of  the Penal
\nCode. Appellants  Harish  Chandra  and\tNathu  were  further
\nconvicted under\t Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced
\nto rigorous  imprisonment for two years, each. The sentences
\nwere directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  facts material  for the  purpose of disposal of
\nthis appeal may be stated thus. The prosecution alleges that
\nthere was
\n354<\/span>
\nlong standing enmity between the parties of the deceased and
\nthe appellants. Some time prior to the incident a flour mill
\nwas installed  and a  house constructed by P.W. 1, Pahelwan,
\nin his\tplot of\t land. In  front of  the flour\tmill and the
\nresidence of  Pahelwan there  was some\tvacant land  in\t his
\npossession. The\t appellants had\t started throwing rubbish on
\nthe land.  Pahelwan  and  his  son,  Ram  Swarup  (deceased)
\nobjected  to  this.  The  appellants  were  annoyed  at\t the
\nobjection of  Pahelwan and  his\t son  Ram  Swarup.  On\t31st
\nDecember, 1968\tat about  noon appellants Harish Chandra and
\nRam Sewak  had some  alteration with Pahelwan and Ram Swarup
\nin connection with throwing of rubbish on the aforesaid land
\nand as\ta  consequence\tthe  relation  between\tthe  parties
\nworsened. In  the evening  at about  8 O’clock on the 1st of
\nJanuary, 1969, appellant, Ram Sewak, armed with a lathi went
\nto the\tfront of  the flour  mill of Pahelwan and started to
\nhurl abuses  on Pahelwan  and his son Ram Swarup. Appellant,
\nRam Sewak,  challenged Pahelwan\t and his  companions to\t see
\nthem that  day. At  that  time,\t it  has  been\talleged,  an
\nelectric light\twas burning  in the front of the room of the
\nflour mill  as usual.  At the  call of\tthe  appellant,\t Ram
\nSewak, the other appellants came variously armed with lathis
\nand spears and started giving blows to Pahelwan and his son,
\nRam Swarup, both of whom, according to the prosecution, were
\nunarmed. Pahelwan, somehow, managed to snatch the spear from
\nthe hand of the appellant, Ishwari, and started giving blows
\nto the\tassailants in order to defend himself. At that time,
\nit has\tbeen further  stated, appellants  Harish Chandra and
\nNathu fired  their gun and pistol respectively. As a result,
\nRam Swarup  was hit  and he  fell down in front of the flour
\nmill. The  shot of  Nathu hit  P.W. 1  Pahelwan, Lal Ram and
\nShri Kishan,  all of whom received injuries. Lekh Raj, P.W.,
\nthen attacked  the appellants with his lathi, as a result of
\nwhich some  injuries were caused to the appellants including
\nHarish Chandra. Thereafter the appellants escaped.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Ram Swarup succumbed to bullet injuries while he was
\nbeing removed  to the  police station.\tA first\t information
\nreport was  lodged by  P.W. 1, and eventually the appellants
\nwere committed\tto the\tcourt of Sessions that convicted and
\nsentenced as  stated above.  Their appeal was also dismissed
\nby the High Court as earlier stated.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned\t counsel for  the appellants  submitted that
\nlarge number  of injuries  had also  been  received  by\t the
\nappellants and that there was no finding by the courts below
\nas to how the assault
\n355<\/span>
\ninitially  started   and  which\t party\twas  the  aggressor,
\nprosecution has\t not explained\tas  to\thow  the  appellants
\nreceived the injuries. As such, he submitted, the conviction
\nfor the\t offences with\tthe aid\t of Section 149, Penal Code,
\nwas bad\t in law. In support of his contention he relied on a
\ndecision of this Court reported in AIR 1976 S. C. 2263. This
\nCourt in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263 has held:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  That the  prosecution has  suppressed the  genesis
\n\t  and the  origin of the occurrence and has thus not
\n\t  presented the true version;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  that the witnesses who have denied the presence of
\n\t  the injuries\ton the\tperson of  the\taccused\t are
\n\t  lying on  most material  point and therefore their
\n\t  evidence is unreliable;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  that in  case there  is a  defence  version  which
\n\t  explains the injuries on the person of the accused
\n\t  it is\t rendered probable  so as  to throw doubt on
\n\t  the prosecution case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       The omission  on the  part of the prosecution
\n\t  to explain  the injuries  on\tthe  person  of\t the
\n\t  accused assumes  much greater importance where the
\n\t  evidence  consists   of  interested\tor  inimical
\n\t  witnesses or\twhere the  defence gives  a  version
\n\t  which competes  in probability  with that  of\t the
\n\t  prosecution one.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The submission  of the  learned  counsel  is  that\t the
\ninjuries found\tin the\tpersons of  the appellants  have not
\nbeen explained by the prosecution. The injuries are serious.
\nThe  appellants\t had  the  right  of  private  defence,\t and
\ntherefore, they have committed no offence.\n<\/p>\n
     The submission  of the learned counsel is not warranted
\nby the\tfindings of  the High Court. The High Court agreeing
\nwith the  trial Court has found that the prosecution case as
\nalleged\t has   been  established  by  the  evidence  of\t the
\nprosecution witnesses.\tThe High  Court as well as the trial
\nCourt has  rejected the defence version of the case, in view
\nof their  inconsistent pleas before the Committing Court and
\nthe trial  Court. Before  the Committing Magistrate pleas of
\nappellants, Harish  Chandra and\t Soney Lal,  were alibi. The
\ndefence of  appellants, Ram  Sewak and\tNathu, was  that the
\noccurr-\n<\/p>\n
356<\/span><\/p>\n
ence had not taken place on the land of P.W. 1, Pahelwan, as
\nalleged by  the prosecution,  but it  had taken\t place at  a
\ndifferent place.  According to\tthem there  was a quarrel in
\nrespect of  some property between Ram Swarup, (deceased) and
\nZorawar, brother-in-law\t of Ram\t Swarup, in  which appellant
\nNathu intervened whereupon Pahelwan (P.W. 1), Lala Ram, Shri
\nKishan, Triloki,  Ram Swarup Prasad, Munna Jamadar, Lekthraj
\nand others  attacked the  appellants and  in  that  incident
\ninjuries were  received by  P.W. 1  and\t the  deceased.\t The
\ndefence\t of   appellant,  Ishwari,   before  the  Committing
\nMagistrate was\tthat Pahelwan  (P.W.1), Lekh  Raj and others
\nattacked him,  as a  result of\twhich he became unconscious.
\nThe defence  of the appellants before the Sessions Judge was
\none  of\t the  right  of\t private  defence.  The\t defence  of
\nappellant Harish  Chander before  the Sessions\tJudge was an
\nalibi. The  defence of the other appellants was that Ishwari
\nhad been  returning from  Ghurwal Chak.\t At that time he was
\nattacked by  the prosecution witnesses and the deceased. The
\nincident took  place on\t a land\t between residence and flour
\nmill of\t P.W.1 and  in that  assault the  appellants had  to
\ndefend themselves.\n<\/p>\n
     5. On  a consideration  of the  evidence on  record the
\nlearned High  Court agreeing  with the\tSessions  Judge\t has
\naccepted the version of the prosecution and rejected that of
\nthe defence. In coming to that conclusion the High Court has
\nalso taken  notice of  the fact\t that P.W.1.  had a licensed
\ngun. Had  he  and  Ram\tSwarup\tand  other  P.W’s  been\t the
\naggressors, he\t(P.W.1) would not have come without the gun.
\nIn view of the “inconsistent pleas” and “in view of the fact
\nthat no\t infirmity worth  the name  has been  shown  in\t the
\nstatement of  eye witnesses  of the  occurrence”,  the\tHigh
\nCourt accepted\tthe prosecution\t case as true and held “that
\nthe defence  case is  false”. The  High Court  has also held
\nthat “appellants were the aggressors”.\n<\/p>\n
     It is therefore, not correct to suggest as contended by
\nthe learned  counsel for  the appellants  that there were no
\nfindings on record to show as to how the quarrel started and
\nthat the appellants were the aggressors.\n<\/p>\n
     6. From  the findings of learned courts below the facts
\nthat emerge  are (1) that it was the appellants who were the
\naggressors; (2)\t that the  occurrence took place on the land
\nin front  of the  house of  P.W. 1,  Pahelwan,\twho  was  in
\npossession thereof;  (3) that P.W.1 and the deceased had the
\nright of the private defence of property and person and they
\ndid exercise that right. Aggres-\n<\/p>\n
357<\/span><\/p>\n
sors, even  if they  receive injuries  from the\t victims  of
\ntheir aggression  cannot have  the right of private defence.
\nThe findings  are that\tP.W.1 and the deceased were unarmed.
\nP.W.1 snatched\ta weapon  from one  of\tthe  assailants\t and
\ncaused injuries\t on them.  On the  top\tof  it\ttwo  of\t the
\nappellants brought  fire arms  and fired at the deceased and
\nthe P.\tW. 1, as a result of which the deceased expired. The
\nsubmissions of\tlearned counsel\t for the  appellants do\t not
\nstand scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
     7. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed\n358<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1379, 1981 SCR (3) 352 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: SONE LAL & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/04\/1981 BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/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-163305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 - 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\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\" \/>\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=\"1981-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-08T23:28:14+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T23:28:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\"},\"wordCount\":1537,\"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\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\",\"name\":\"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T23:28:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981\"}]},{\"@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":"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 - 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\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-08T23:28:14+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981","datePublished":"1981-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T23:28:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981"},"wordCount":1537,"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\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981","name":"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T23:28:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sone-lal-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-3-april-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981"}]},{"@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\/163305","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=163305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}