{"id":171356,"date":"2007-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007"},"modified":"2017-02-11T13:16:39","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T07:46:39","slug":"shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1003 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nShaik Mastan Vali\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Andhra Pradesh\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1003     OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2692 of 2006)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
\nBench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed
\nby the appellant questioning his conviction or offence
\npunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
\n(in short the ‘IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment of life and
\nfine of Rs.30,000\/- with default stipulation.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Adivamma (PW-1) is the mother and Mandapate Rullaiah
\n(PW-2) is brother of Nagandla Pichamma (hereinafter referred
\nto as the ‘deceased’) brother of the deceased. The deceased,
\nthe accused and the other material witnesses lived in Martur.
\nThe deceased belonged to Byneedi Madiga by caste, whereas
\nthe accused belongs to Muslim community. The deceased was
\na deserted lady and she developed illicit intimacy with the
\naccused and gave birth to a female child.  She was residing in
\na thatched house situated adjacent to her parents’ house.
\nDuring the life time of deceased, the accused used to harass
\nand beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity.  On 31.10.1998
\nat about 9 p.m., while the deceased was watching the T.V.
\nprogramme in the house of Venkata (PW3), the accused came
\nthere and on seeing her the accused became wild and brought
\nthe deceased by beating with hands and took up to his house.
\nOn the next day morning, PW1 went to the house of the
\ndeceased and found that the deceased dead and she was lying
\non the cot. PW1 found ligature marks on her throat and
\naround the neck of the deceased. On hearing the hue and cry
\nof PW 1, the neighbours gathered at the scene of offence.
\nThereafter, late M. Polaiah, father of the deceased, went to the
\npolice station and gave an oral report to the S.1. of Police at
\nabout 3.30 p.m., which was reduced in writing under Ex. P5.
\nOn the basis of Ex. P-5, PW6 registered a case in Cr. No. 102
\nof 1998 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P6.
\nThereafter, PW6 visited the scene of’ offence, prepared scene of
\nobservation report Ex. P2 and seized MO.1 to MO.3 in the
\npresence of PW4 and another. Then PW6 examined PWs 1 to
\n3, 5 and others and recorded their statement. On 02.11.1998
\nat about 8 AM, PW8 C.I of Police conducted the inquest over
\nthe dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4 and
\nanother. Ex, P-3 is the inquest report. On 02.11.1998 itself,
\nCivil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Addanki (PW\n<\/p>\n
7) conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased
\nand opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia
\ncaused by strangulation with ligature. Ex. P-8 is the post
\nmortem report. On 11.11.1998, the accused surrendered
\nbefore the court. After completion of investigation, PW 8 filed
\nthe charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
On receipt of the committal order by the learned
\nAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, the
\nlearned Special Sessions Judge for Cases under SCs and STs
\n(P.A.) Act, 1989, Ongole took the case on file in SC No.71\/99
\non its file and ultimately the accused was put up for trial
\nbefore the learned Sessions Judge, charged of the offence
\nunder section 302 I.P.C. or alternatively under Sec. 3(2)(v) of
\nthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
\nAtrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short the SCST Act).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,
\nexamined PW 1 to PW 8 and marked Exs. P1 to P8 and MOs. 1
\nto 8.  No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf
\nof defence.  Accused pleaded innocence.\n<\/p>\n
Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs. 1& 2 i.e. mother
\nand the brother of the deceased respectively, the trial court
\nrecorded his conviction.  Since it was a case which was based
\non circumstantial evidence, the trial court took note of several
\ncircumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused.  Though he
\nwas found not guilty of offence under Section 3, he was
\nacquitted of charges for commission of offence punishable
\nunder Section 3(2)(5) of the SCST Act.  In appeal the High
\nCourt affirmed the conclusions.  The High Court took note of
\nthe fact that the witnesses have seen accused dragging the
\ndeceased to the hut in the night. Next day morning the
\ndeceased was found dead.  This, according to the prosecution
\nversion, is sufficient to fasten the guilt in the absence of any
\nexplanation by the accused at about his absence thereafter.
\nThis stand was accepted by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIn support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
\nsubmitted that this being a case of circumstantial evidence,
\nthe prosecution has not established its accusations. Learned
\ncounsel for the respondent-State supported the order of the
\ntrial court and the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIt has been consistently laid down by this Court that
\nwhere a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
\ninference of guilt can be justified only when all the
\nincriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
\nincompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of
\nany other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
\n(AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 1063), Eradu v. State of Hyderabad (AIR<\/a> 1956
\nSC 316), Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC\n<\/p>\n
446), State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1224), Balwinder
\nSingh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) and Ashok Kumar
\nChatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR<\/a> 1989 SC 1890). The
\ncircumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the
\naccused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
\nand have to be shown to be closely connected with the
\nprincipal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
\nIn Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621) it was
\nlaid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion
\ndrawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the
\ncircumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of
\nthe accused and bring home the offences beyond any
\nreasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWe may also make a reference to a decision of this Court
\nin C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996 (10) SCC 193),
\nwherein it has been observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“21. In a case based on circumstantial
\nevidence, the settled law is that the
\ncircumstances from which the conclusion of
\nguilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
\ncircumstances must be conclusive in nature.
\nMoreover, all the circumstances should be
\ncomplete and there should be no gap left in
\nthe chain of evidence. Further, the proved
\ncircumstances must be consistent only with
\nthe hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
\ntotally inconsistent with his innocence.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. (AIR 1990 SC 79) it
\nwas laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial
\nevidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:\n<\/p>\n
1) the circumstances from which an
\ninference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must
\nbe cogently and firmly established;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tthose circumstances should be of a
\ndefinite tendency unerringly pointing towards
\nguilt of the accused;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tthe circumstances, taken cumulatively,
\nshould form a chain so complete that there is
\nno escape from the conclusion that within all
\nhuman probability the crime was committed
\nby the accused and none else; and
\n(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to
\nsustain conviction must be complete and
\nincapable of explanation of any other
\nhypothesis than that of guilt of the accused
\nand such evidence should not only be
\nconsistent with the guilt of the accused but
\nshould be inconsistent with his innocence.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava<\/a> (1992 Crl. LJ
\n1104) it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
\nevaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
\non is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
\nthe accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
\ncircumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
\nestablished and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
\nestablished must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
\nguilt.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tSir Alfred Wills in his admirable book `Wills’
\nCircumstantial Evidence’ (Chapter VI) lays down the following
\nrules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
\nevidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal
\ninference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
\nconnected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof
\nis always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact,
\nwhich infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of
\ndirect or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be
\nadduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to
\njustify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
\nincompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable
\nof explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than
\nthat of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the
\nguilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThere is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on
\ncircumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the
\ntouchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid
\ndown by this Court as far back as in 1952.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (AIR
\n1952 SC 343) it was observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“It is well to remember that in cases where
\nthe evidence is of a circumstantial nature,
\nthe circumstances from which the conclusion
\nof guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
\ninstance be fully established, and all the
\nfacts so established should be consistent
\nonly with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
\naccused. Again, the circumstances should be
\nof a conclusive nature and tendency and they
\nshould be such as to exclude every
\nhypothesis but the one proposed to be
\nproved. In other words, there must be a
\nchain of evidence so far complete as not to
\nleave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
\nconsistent with the innocence of the accused
\nand it must be such as to show that within
\nall human probability the act must have
\nbeen done by the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tA reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
\nBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR<\/a> 1984 SC
\n1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
\nhas been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove
\nthat the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the
\nprosecution cannot be cured by a false defence or plea. The
\nconditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
\nconviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be
\nfully established. They are:\n<\/p>\n
(1) the circumstances from which the
\nconclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
\nfully established. The circumstances
\nconcerned must or should and not may be
\nestablished;\n<\/p>\n
(2) the facts so established should be
\nconsistent only with the hypothesis of the
\nguilt of the accused, that is to say, they
\nshould not be explainable on any other
\nhypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
\n(3) the circumstances should be of a
\nconclusive nature and tendency;\n<\/p>\n
(4) they should exclude every possible
\nhypothesis except the one to be proved; and
\n(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
\ncomplete as not to leave any reasonable
\nground for the conclusion consistent with the
\ninnocence of the accused and must show
\nthat in all human probability the act must
\nhave been done by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe above position was highlighted in State of U.P. v.
\nSatish<\/a> (2005 (3) SCC 114).\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWhen the evidence on record is analysed in the
\nbackground of principles highlighted above, the inevitable
\nconclusion is that the prosecution has established its
\naccusations.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn the instant case the deceased has intimacy with the
\naccused and used to live in a hut and the accused frequently
\nvisited the house of the deceased and lived there as husband
\nand wife.  During night time on the previous day of the
\noccurrence while the deceased was watching T.V. in the house
\nof PW 3, the accused came to the house of PW 3 and started
\nbeating the deceased and dragged her to hut.  On the next day
\nmorning PWs. 1& 2 found her dead.  The police found one
\ntowel of the accused which was tied around the waist of the
\ndeceased and the rope was lying near the cot.  The trial Court
\nand the High Court have rightly relied upon the circumstances
\nto hold the accused guilty.  We find no substance in the
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAppeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1003 of 2007 PETITIONER: Shaik Mastan Vali RESPONDENT: State of Andhra Pradesh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/08\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA […]<\/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-171356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 - 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\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T07:46:39+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\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T07:46:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2076,\"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\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T07:46:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 - 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\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T07:46:39+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\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T07:46:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007"},"wordCount":2076,"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\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007","name":"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T07:46:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-mastan-vali-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-3-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/171356","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=171356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}