{"id":16497,"date":"2003-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003"},"modified":"2016-02-06T22:35:58","modified_gmt":"2016-02-06T17:05:58","slug":"ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  2032-33 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nRamakant Rai\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMadan Rai and Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
WITH<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 611-612\/1997<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n
\tOne Jairam (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was in his
\nearly teens when he lost his life in an unfortunate dispute where his
\nrelatives were the warring parties. There were originally 4 accused
\npersons namely, Madan Rai (A-1), Rasbehari (A-2), Sachidanand Rai (A-3)
\nand Janardan Rai (A-4). Accused-Madan Rai is the father of Sachidanand
\nand Rasbehari. Accused-Madan Rai was charged for commission of offence
\npunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
\nthe ‘IPC’) for committing the murder of deceased and other three were
\ncharged by application of Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. All
\nthe four accused persons were also charged in terms of Section 440 IPC
\nfor committing mischief having made preparation to cause hurt.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe date of occurrence is 11.5.1984. The dispute arose over fixing
\na door by Ramakant (appellant in Crl.A.Nos.2032-33\/96). By infliction of
\na gunshot injury the deceased breathed his last on 12.5.1984. According
\nto Siyaram (PW-1) the informant, the incident which took life of the
\ndeceased was the result of long-standing dispute over properties. There
\nwas a private partition between the deceased’s father and his offsprings
\nand accused-Madan Rai a few years before the occurrence. Madan Rai
\nwanted to take northern room out of the rooms in which cattles were
\ntethered and which was falling to share of Siyaram, the informant.
\nThough the door of this room had been removed earlier, the informant
\nwanted to close the door by constructing a mud wall. On the date of
\noccurrence at about 6.30 p.m. the accused-Madan Rai came with his
\nlicensed gun to the spot of occurrence with his sons Sachidanand,
\nRasbehari and Janardan. Three of them were armed with lathis. They
\nstarted demolishing the walls. The present appellant-Ramakant Rai and
\nSiyaram and deceased requested them not to do so. Madan Rai took out his
\ngun and fired one shot. Sound of such gun fire attracted notice of many
\nincluding Bashisht Pandey (PW2), Bhimnath Rai (PW5)and many other
\nvillagers who came to his house, particularly, to the room to find out
\nwhat has happened. The informant, the deceased and others came to the
\nroom where informant’s cattles were tethered. Accused-Madan Rai climbed
\non the roof to the western corner of the house with his gun. Deceased
\nwas at the door of the room which was towards north-west of his house.
\nMadan Rai fired one gun shot which resulted in injuries on the face of
\nthe deceased who fell down. According to the informant the ghastly
\nincident was witnessed by Bashisht Pandey (PW2), Bhimnath Rai (PW5) and
\nthe neighbourers. As the condition of the deceased deteriorated, he was
\ntaken in a tractor to the hospital at Mohammadbad, information was
\nlodged at the police station, and investigation was undertaken. On
\ncompletion of the investigation, charge sheet was placed.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering the evidence on record the Trial Court found accused-
\nMadan Rai guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the
\noffence relatable to under Section 302 IPC and for the offence
\npunishable under Section 440 IPC imprisonment for term of two years with
\na fine of Rs.500\/- was imposed. Other three accused were acquitted of
\ncharges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.  However, they were
\nheld guilty in relation to Section 440 IPC. The convicted accused
\npersons filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court which by the
\nimpugned judgment found the prosecution version to be wanting
\nincredibility and adequacy and directed acquittal. State’s appeal
\nagainst acquittal of three was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the High Court, there was manipulation so far as the
\ntime of occurrence in the FIR is concerned. Originally, the same appears
\nto have been written at 7.30 p.m. and subsequently corrected to 6.30
\np.m., obviously, with a view to make visibility and identification
\npossible.  There was no motive to kill the young boy, as the accepted
\nposition seemed to be that notwithstanding the difference there was no
\nsufficient reason as to why the innocent boy should be killed. It was
\nalso concluded that since there was only one gunshot, the question of
\nso-called eyewitnesses rushing to the spot on hearing the sound appeared
\nincredible. The distance from which the bullet was fired appeared to be
\ndifferently stated and there was apparent contradiction in the evidence
\nof doctor who conducted the post mortem and the doctor who examined the
\ndeceased immediately after he had suffered the injuries. While Dr.
\nChander Bhan Tripathi (PW-4) who conducted the post-mortem examination
\nindicated the distance to be greater, doctor (PW-3) who examined the
\ndeceased noticed some blackening and tattooing which indicated that the
\ngun shot was fired from a very close range. After making casual
\nreference to the evidence it was concluded that on the overall
\nappreciation of evidence contradictory statement of affairs about the
\ninjuries and the ocular testimonies, time of lodging of FIR throws grave
\ndoubt in the prosecution case. It was, therefore, concluded that place
\nof occurrence as said to have taken place and stated in Court is not
\ncorrect version of the incident and the prosecution has not come with
\nclean and correct case. With these findings, the judgment of conviction
\nand sentence was set aside and one of acquittal was put in its place.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe father of the deceased, Ramakant Rai has filed Criminal
\nAppeals Nos. 2032-33\/96. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed Criminal
\nAppeal Nos.611-612\/1997 restricting the challenge to the acquittal of
\nRasbehari, Sachidanand and Janardan but there is no challenge to the
\nacquittal of Madan Rai, the prime accused according to the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant Ramakant Rai submitted that the
\nconclusions of the High Court are without any basis and the judgment is
\npractically un-reasoned and conclusions cannot be substitute for
\nreasons. Referring to the number of shots it is submitted that the
\nevidence of the witnesses clearly spoke of two gunshots. This was also
\nnoticed by the trial Court. Unfortunately, the High Court proceeded on
\nthe presumption as if there was only one gunshot. In reality there was
\none gunshot, which hit the deceased. But the clear and cogent evidence
\nwas to the effect that one shot was fired first and after some time the
\nsecond shot was fired which proved to be fatal. The High Court has
\nattached unnecessary importance to the correction made in the FIR about
\nthe time of occurrence. There was no material and no finding has been
\nrecorded that initially some timing was given which was subsequently
\nchanged. It is not the case of the defence that at first 7.30 p.m. which
\nwas written in the FIR was subsequently changed to 6.30 p.m. in another
\ndocument. As has been explained by the informant the correction was made
\nbefore the first FIR was handed over. To say that the timing was changed
\nafter deliberation would not be a proper approach. According to the
\ninformant by tremor of hand it was so written and immediately corrected
\nand to discard the prosecution case on the conjectures and surmises that
\nthe timing was changed after deliberation is indefensible. Even if it is
\nconceded that there was a correction made that was obviously made before
\nthe FIR was handed over and mere correction cannot be viewed with
\nsuspicion as has been done by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. Sudhakar Dube (PW-3) has clarified as to why he had stated
\nabout blackening. The evidence was to the effect that when he examined
\nthe injured there was no electric light and he had to make the
\nexamination with the help of lantern and, therefore, the confusion
\narose. In view of this specific clarification, it was not appropriate
\nfor the High Court to conclude that the post mortem report was to be
\ndiscarded.  The trial Court had dealt with such pleas of the accused
\npersons elaborately and had indicated the reasons as to why they were
\nnot acceptable. The High Court without even discussing the evidence
\nelaborately concluded to the contrary. Evidence of PWs 2 and 5 who are
\nindependent witnesses has been discarded even without analyzing of their
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the acquitted accused persons
\nsubmitted that the special leave petition at the instance of the father
\nof the deceased was not competent. Though he claimed to be eyewitness,
\nhe was not examined by the prosecution. The reasoning indicated by the
\nTrial Court that he may have shown compassion to his close relative
\nhaving lost the son is contradicted by the very fact that he has chosen
\nto file Special leave petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith reference to evidence of doctors it was submitted that nature
\nof gunshots wounds shows that the firing was from a close range. Had the
\nsituation been otherwise, the injuries could not have been of oval
\nshape, when the prosecution version is that the accused was firing from
\na height. The nature of the injuries sustained clearly rule out any gun
\nbeing fired by the accused Madan Rai. Neither any gun nor any bullet was
\nproduced which dents the prosecution version irretrievably. The absence
\nof ballistic expert’s report corrodes credibility of prosecution
\nversion.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering the distance from which PWs 2 and 5 claimed to have
\ncome, it is highly improbable that they would have seen the occurrence
\nas claimed. The timing of incident was first correctly reflected and
\nprobably in the course of writing down the first FIR it was noticed that
\nvisibility would be poor and identification improbable and that is why
\nthe change was made. Even if it was done before the report was lodged it
\nthrows great doubt about the correct presentation of the factual
\nscenario. Though the High Court has not spelt out the reasons to
\nbuttress the conclusions that is not fatal to the ultimate conclusions
\nas the material on record would justify the conclusions and the
\ncorrectness thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the State of U.P. submitted that though the
\nState has not specifically challenged the acquittal of Madan Rai, on a
\nbare reading of the High Court’s judgment it is clear that the same
\ncannot be maintained. Additionally, it is submitted that both the trial
\nCourt and the High Court have erroneously concluded that Section 440 IPC
\nwas not made out against accused 2, 3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
\tA doubt has been raised about the competence of a private party as
\ndistinguished from the State, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
\nunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
\n‘Constitution’) against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. We do
\nnot see any substance in the doubt. Appellate power vested in this Court
\nunder Article 136 of the Constitution is not to be confused with
\nordinary appellate power exercised by appellate courts and appellate
\ntribunals under specific statutes. It is a plenary power, ‘exercisable
\noutside the purview of ordinary law’ to meet the pressing demands of
\njustice (See Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh (AIR<\/a> 1954 SC\n<\/p>\n
520). Article 136 of the Constitution neither confers on anyone the
\nright to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court nor inhibits anyone from
\ninvoking the Court’s jurisdiction. The power is vested in this Court but
\nthe right to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction is vested in no one. The
\nexercise of the power of this Court is not circumscribed by any
\nlimitation as to who may invoke it. Where a judgment of acquittal by the
\nHigh Court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice this Court cannot
\nrefrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground
\nthat a private party and not the State has invoked the Court’s
\njurisdiction. We do not have slightest doubt that we can entertain
\nappeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the instance
\nof interested private parties also. The circumstance that the Criminal
\nProcedure Code, 1973 (in short the “Code”) does not provide for an
\nappeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a subordinate
\nCourt, at the instance of a private party, has no relevance to the
\nquestion of the power of this Court under Article 136. We may mention
\nthat in Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh (1978 (3) SCC 279) this Court interfered
\nwith a judgment of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of a
\nprivate party. An apprehension was expressed that if appeals against
\njudgments of acquittal at the instance of private parties are permitted
\nthere may be a flood of appeals. We do not share the apprehension.
\nAppeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are entertained by special
\nleave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private party
\nthat invokes the jurisdiction of this Court, and special leave is not
\ngranted as a matter of course but only for good and sufficient reasons,
\non well established by the practice of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tAbove was the view expressed by this Court in Arunachalam v.
\nP.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr.<\/a> (1979 (2) SCC 279). The view has again been
\nreiterated by the Constitution Bench in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v.
\nArunachalam and Anr.<\/a> (1980 (3) SCC 141).\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is to be seen whether the broad spectrum spread out of Article
\n136 fills the bill from the point of view of “procedure established by
\nlaw”. In express terms, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal
\non a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on this
\nCourt to interfere in suitable cases. The discretionary dimension is
\nconsiderable but that relates to the power of the Court. Article 136 is
\na special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in
\nits amplitude, its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself.
\nThis Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice
\nwherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of
\ncases from Article 136. Is it merely a power in the court to be
\nexercised in any manner it fancies? Is there no procedural limitation in
\nthe manner of exercise and the occasion for exercise? Is there no duty
\nto act fairly while hearing a case under Article 136, either in the
\nmatter of grant of leave or, after such grant, in the final disposal of
\nthe appeal? There cannot be even a shadow of doubt that there is a
\nprocedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in this Court. The
\nfounding fathers unarguably intended in the very terms of Article 136
\nthat it shall be exercised by the judges of the highest Court of the
\nland with scrupulous adherence to settled judicial principles, well
\nestablished by precedents in our jurisprudence. Judicial discretion is
\ncanalized authority not arbitrary eccentricity. Cardozo, with elegant
\naccuracy, has observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The judge, even when he is free, is still not
\nwholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is
\nnot a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his
\nown ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his
\ninspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to
\nyield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and
\nunregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a
\ndiscretion informed by tradition, methodized by
\nanalogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to
\n‘the primordial necessity of order in the social
\nlife’. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of
\ndiscretion that remains”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is manifest that Article 136 is of composite structure, is
\npower-cum-procedure – power in that it vests jurisdiction in this Court
\nand procedure in that it spells a mode of hearing. It obligates the
\nexercise of judicial discretion and the mode of hearing so
\ncharacteristic of the court process.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the appeals before us we find that State has not
\nchallenged the acquittal of accused Madan Rai. That being the position
\nand in view of what has been stated in Arunachalam’s case (supra) and
\nSadhanantham’s case (supra) the special leave petition filed by Ramakant
\nRai is clearly maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted that when two views are possible and the High
\nCourt with well-chiselled conclusions has accepted a view it would not
\nbe proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution. Arguments are not substitutes for reasoning. More so when
\nthe appellate court upsets conclusions of lower court. A party is not
\npermitted to say that the arguments are what the Court intended to
\naccept or to convey. When the appellate Court concurs with the views of
\nthe Trial Court the necessity for elaborately dealing with various
\naspects may not always be necessary. But when a view contrary to that of
\nthe lower court is expressed, it is imperative that reasons therefor
\nshould be clearly indicated. There is no scope for any departure from
\nthis basic requirement. Therefore, the plea of the accused-respondents
\nthat even though the judgment of the High Court is not very elaborately
\nreasoned, yet it can be supplemented by arguments is a fallacious one.\n<\/p>\n
It is also noticed that the High Court did not correctly
\nappreciate the facts. First and foremost it proceeded on the basis as if
\nthere was only one gunshot. In fact the evidence on record clearly shows
\nthat there were two gunshots and only one of them was a fatal one.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe evidence of PWs 2 and 5 have been lightly brushed aside with
\npresumptuous conclusion that they could not probably have come from
\ntheir houses and since there was only one gunshot. On that score alone
\nthe High Court’s conclusions suffer from vulnerability. The High Court
\nalso proceeded as if the change in timing indicated in the FIR was
\nsubsequently done. There is no material to support this conclusion. Here
\nagain, High Court acted without any material to support its conclusions.
\nThe Investigating officer (PW-6) was also not even asked as to when the
\nchange was made. On the contrary, reading of PW-1’s evidence shows that
\nit was done before the report was handed over to the police.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court also came to erroneous conclusion that there was
\nvariance between the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. It clearly overlooked the
\nexplanation offered by PW-3 as to why he had mentioned about blackening.
\nHe has stated that examination at the first instance was done in
\ninadequate light with the help of lantern. Therefore, he accepted that
\nthere was a possibility of mistake in what he recorded about the
\nblackening. When one compares his evidence with that of PW-4 the
\nposition is clear. PW-4 has not really noticed any blackening or
\ntattooing. Without considering the evidence of PW-3 in its proper
\nperspective the High Court should not have abruptly concluded that there
\nwas a difference in the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and accused is to get
\nthe benefit therefor. In fact a combined reading of the evidence of PWs
\n3 and 4 shows that PW-4’s version was more authentic and acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\tMuch emphasis has been laid about the nature of injury. The
\nhypothetical answers given by the doctors cannot corrode credibility of
\neyewitnesses. Significantly, no question was put to PWs 3 and 4 as to
\nthe position from where the accused could have made the gunshot.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is trite that where the eyewitnesses’ account is found credible
\nand trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities
\nis not accepted as conclusive.  Witnesses, as Bantham said, are the eyes
\nand ears of justice.  Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of
\nthe trial process.  Eyewitnesses’ account would require a careful
\nindependent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should
\nnot be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical
\nevidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.  The
\nevidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent
\nprobability of the story; consistency with the account of other
\nwitnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed
\nfacts the ‘credit’ of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-
\nbox; their power of observation etc.  Then the probative value of such
\nevidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative
\nevaluation.\n<\/p>\n
\tA person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an
\noffence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof
\nbeyond reasonable doubt.  Though this standard is a higher standard,
\nthere is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability
\namounts to ‘proof’ is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to
\nof probability amounts to ‘proof’ is an exercise the inter-dependence of
\nevidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another a
\nlearned author says: (See “The Mathematics of Proof II”: Glanville
\nWilliams: Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340(342).\n<\/p>\n
\t“The simple multiplication rule does not apply
\nif the separate pieces of evidence are dependent.\n<\/p>\n
Two events are dependent when they tend to occur
\ntogether, and the evidence of such events may also be
\nsaid to be dependent. In a criminal case, different
\npieces of evidence directed to establishing that the
\ndefendant did the prohibit act with the specified
\nstate of mind are generally dependent.  A juror may
\nfeel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession,
\nand doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that
\nthe defendant fled from justice.  But since it is
\ngenerally guilty rather than innocent people who make
\nconfessions, and guilty rather than innocent people
\nwho run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied
\ntogether. The one piece of evidence may confirm the
\nother”.\n<\/p>\n
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for
\nabstract speculation.  Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
\nTo constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional
\nresponse.  Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt
\nof the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of
\nit, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an
\nimaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based
\nupon reason and common-sense.  It must grow out of the evidence in the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot
\nobviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated
\nas to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
\nThere is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the
\ndegrees of probability and the quantum of proof.  Forensic probability
\nmust, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and,
\nultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge.  While the
\nprotection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not
\nto be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of
\ntrivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.
\nThis position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachalia, J(as His
\nLordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr. (AIR<\/a> 1988
\nSC 2154).\n<\/p>\n
 As was noted by this Court in Gurcharan Singh and Anr. v. State
\nof Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 340) non-examination of the ballistic report does
\nnot render direct evidence improbable.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of disposal of the appeal and
\nthe inherent improbabilities and incongruities in the conclusions, the
\nunreasoned impugned judgment of the High Court warrants reversal. So far
\nas accused-Madan Lal is concerned, his conviction under Section 302 IPC
\nas done by the Trial Court is restored. So far as acquittal of other
\naccused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 is concerned, the
\nTrial Court had elaborately dealt with the evidence to extend benefit of
\ndoubt to them. The High Court did not interfere in the State’s appeal so
\nfar as their acquittal is concerned. Nothing could be shown to us as to
\nwhy the conclusions are to be reversed and in what way they are
\nfallacious.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the appeal filed by the State and the challenge of
\nRamakant Rai to the acquittal of accused respondents Sachidanand,
\nRasbehari and Janardan under Section 440 IPC, for which two years
\nimprisonment was imposed, is concerned the High Court’s judgment is
\nreversed. The respondents Sachidanand, Rasbehari and Janardan were
\nrightly convicted by the Trial Court under Section 440 IPC along with
\naccused Madan Rai. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a
\nfine of Rs.500\/- as imposed can be in no way termed to be excessive to
\nwarrant a different sentence.\n<\/p>\n
In the ultimate result, the judgment of the Trial Court is
\nrestored and that of the High Court is set aside. The respondents shall
\nsurrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence, if any, to
\nbe served.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeals are allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 2032-33 of 1996 PETITIONER: Ramakant Rai RESPONDENT: Madan Rai and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-16497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 - 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\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-06T17:05:58+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T17:05:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4077,\"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\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T17:05:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 - 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\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-06T17:05:58+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T17:05:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003"},"wordCount":4077,"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\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003","name":"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T17:05:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-rai-vs-madan-rai-and-ors-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/16497","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=16497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}