{"id":172562,"date":"2010-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-20T04:35:30","modified_gmt":"2016-06-19T23:05:30","slug":"indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                      1\n\n\n\n                                                               \"Reportable\"\n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 125-126 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\nIndresh Kumar                                                    .... Appellant\n\n\n                                       Versus\n\n\nRam Phal & Ors.                                                  ......Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     These   appeals   questions   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
whereby   the   High   Court   allowed   the   appeal   filed   by   one   Ramphal <\/p>\n
(respondent No. 1 herein), an Inspector of Police and acquitted him of <\/p>\n
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   218,   IPC.     He   was   also <\/p>\n
acquitted   of   the   other   offences   punishable   under   Sections   342   and <\/p>\n
323,   IPC.     He   was   convicted   by   the   Court   of   Additional   Sessions <\/p>\n
Judge,   Kaithal   wherein   as   many   as   seven   persons   were   tried   for <\/p>\n
these   offences.         His     other     six     co-accused       were,     however, <\/p>\n
acquitted   by   the   Trial   Court   while   Inspector   Ramphal   who <\/p>\n
is     now     arrayed     as     the     first     respondent,     was     convicted. <\/p>\n
This     judgment    was    challenged    by    him    before    the    High <\/p>\n
                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
Court. The acquittal of Ramphal from other offences as also the total <\/p>\n
acquittal   of   other   six   accused   persons   came   to   be   challenged   by <\/p>\n
Indresh Kumar, the original complainant and the appellant herein by <\/p>\n
way of a criminal revision.   The High Court in its common judgment <\/p>\n
has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and has <\/p>\n
awarded   him   the   verdict   of   total   acquittal.   At   the   same   time,   the <\/p>\n
revision filed by appellant Indresh Kumar was dismissed.   Appellant <\/p>\n
Indresh Kumar now has come up before us challenging the acquittal <\/p>\n
of   all   the   accused   persons   including   Ramphal   (respondent   No.   1-<\/p>\n
accused) who was acquitted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     This case has a long history as well as political overtones.  The <\/p>\n
appellant-complainant   Indresh   Kumar   who   was   originally   examined <\/p>\n
as   PW-8   came   to   know   about   the   illegal   detention   of   his   father <\/p>\n
Chaman Lal Saraf and his two brothers by the Police of Kaithal.   He <\/p>\n
was ordinarily residing in Jammu where he was working as a full time <\/p>\n
preacher of an organisation, namely, Rashtriya Swamsewak Sangh. <\/p>\n
On coming to know about the illegal detention he reached Kaithal on <\/p>\n
25.06.1992   and   went   to   the   city   Police   Station,   Kaithal   where <\/p>\n
Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) was the Station House Officer. <\/p>\n
He   had   gone   there   along   with   two   of   his   friends.     On   being   asked <\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
about the illegal detention of his father and the brothers, Ramphal not <\/p>\n
only took him in custody but he was beaten up with stick not only by <\/p>\n
Ramphal   but   by   other   Police   Officials   also   (the   other   six   accused <\/p>\n
persons) on the asking of Ramphal.  He was then taken from place to <\/p>\n
place   in   a   Police   jeep.     On   the   next   day,   after   the   medical <\/p>\n
examination,   he   was   produced   before   the   Executive   Magistrate <\/p>\n
where he learnt that a total false case under Section 107\/151 Cr.P.C. <\/p>\n
was registered against him on the allegations that he had fought and <\/p>\n
created ruckus at the residence of one Anil Kumar S\/o Prem Chand. <\/p>\n
He   was   initially   directed   to   submit   a   bond   of   his   good   behaviour, <\/p>\n
however,   later   on   the   Magistrate   dropped   the   proceedings   against <\/p>\n
him. Appellant Indresh Kumar then met the Superintendent of Police <\/p>\n
and   Deputy   Commissioner,   Kaithal   where   he   filed   the   complaint <\/p>\n
against   Ramphal   (respondent   No.1-accused)   and   his   co-accused. <\/p>\n
He, thereafter, returned to Jammu.   However, he returned to Kaithal <\/p>\n
on   11.07.1992   and   again   got   himself   examined   where   on   his <\/p>\n
radiological examination, a fracture was found on his left foot.  <\/p>\n
3.     On demonstrations by a political party about the alleged police <\/p>\n
atrocities,   the   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Kurukshetra   was <\/p>\n
appointed   as   the   inquiry   officer   to   inquire   into   the   offence   on <\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
10.07.1992.     He   submitted   his  report  on   31.07.1992  wherein   it  was <\/p>\n
reported   that   Ramphal   (respondent   No.1-accused)   and   other   co-<\/p>\n
accused were guilty of offences.   On the basis of this report, a case <\/p>\n
was   registered  at   the   city  Police   Station,   Kaithal  in   February,   1996. <\/p>\n
The case also got reinvestigated.  Ultimately, all the accused persons <\/p>\n
were   charged   under   Sections   367,   420,   468,   471,   218,   IPC   and <\/p>\n
120B,   IPC.     The   case   was   tried   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge, <\/p>\n
Kaithal   where   as   many   as   22   witnesses   came   to   be   examined. <\/p>\n
However,   the   Trial   Court   acquitted   six   accused   persons   while <\/p>\n
convicting   respondent   Ramphal   alone   for   the   offence   punishable <\/p>\n
under Sections 323, 218 and 342, IPC.  We have already pointed out <\/p>\n
that   Ramphal’s   appeal   before   the   High   Court   was   allowed   and   he <\/p>\n
was   acquitted   while   the   revision   filed   against   his   acquittal   from   the <\/p>\n
other   offences   and   the   total   acquittal   granted   to   other   six   accused <\/p>\n
persons   was   dismissed.     That   is   how   Indresh   Kumar   (appellant-<\/p>\n
complainant) is before us in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     On the basis of the evidence of Dr. B.B. Kakkar (PW-6) that he <\/p>\n
had examined Indresh Kumar on 26.06.1992 at 6.05 a.m. and issued <\/p>\n
medical   report   as  Exhibit   PD,   the   High   Court   found  that   in  the  said <\/p>\n
medical report, it was mentioned that Indresh Kumar had suffered the <\/p>\n
                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
injury to his right foot.  Whereas when examined by Dr. S.K. Singhal <\/p>\n
(PW-7)   on   11.07.1992   in   the   Civil   Hospital,   Kaithal,   Dr.   Singhal   he <\/p>\n
had found fracture of fifth Metatorsal bone of the left foot of Indresh <\/p>\n
Kumar.   From these, the High Court came to the conclusion that the <\/p>\n
prosecution had not given the truthful version of the story inasmuch <\/p>\n
as   a   fracture   of   right   foot   could   not   travel   to   the   left   foot   within   a <\/p>\n
period of 20 days.  The High Court then found fault with the absence <\/p>\n
of   application   which   Indresh   Kumar   had   given   before   the <\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police, Kaithal on 26.06.1992 itself.   It, therefore, <\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that it could not presume that Indresh Kumar <\/p>\n
had   moved   the   police   authorities   on   26.06.1992   against   the   torture <\/p>\n
allegedly suffered by him at the hands of Ramphal.   The High Court <\/p>\n
also   noticed   that   one   Anil   Kumar   s\/o   Prem   Chand   had   moved   an <\/p>\n
application   on  25.06.1992   against   Indresh   Kumar,  the  photocopy  of <\/p>\n
which was produced by accused as Exhibit-DA.   From this, the High <\/p>\n
Court   deduced   that   the   story   put   forth   by   the   Police   that   Ramphal <\/p>\n
(respondent   No.1-accused)   had   gone   to   the   residence   of   Prem <\/p>\n
Chand   and   had   created   a   ruckus   there   and   during   that   Ramphal <\/p>\n
(respondent   No.1-accused)   was   injured   at   the   hands   of   Anil   Kumar <\/p>\n
due  to  which  both Indresh  Kumar  (appellant  herein)  as  well  as  Anil <\/p>\n
                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumar   were   produced   before   the   Executive   Magistrate   in   the <\/p>\n
morning, must be taken to be a true story.  From this the High Court <\/p>\n
further   deduced   that   Indresh   Kumar   might   have   felt   insulted   and   in <\/p>\n
order   to   take   revenge   against   Ramphal   and   other   six   co-accused <\/p>\n
persons, Indresh Kumar might have invented a false story.  The High <\/p>\n
Court   also   viewed   suspiciously   that   injured   Indresh   Kumar   went   to <\/p>\n
Jammu   on   26.06.1992   itself   without   getting   himself   radiologically <\/p>\n
examined   only   to   return   from   there   on   11.07.1992   to   get   the <\/p>\n
confirmation about his fracture in the subsequent examination.  It was <\/p>\n
held that Indresh Kumar got the wrong foot X-rayed.  It was also held <\/p>\n
that   the   prosecution   had   not   proved   that   Ramphal   had   forged   the <\/p>\n
application on behalf of Anil Kumar and had registered a false case <\/p>\n
under   Section   107\/151   Cr.P.C.   against   Indresh   Kumar   and   it   had <\/p>\n
further failed to produce Anil Kumar in order to rebut the contention of <\/p>\n
Ramphal   that   he   had   taken   action   against   Indresh   Kumar   on   the <\/p>\n
application moved by Anil Kumar.   It was also held that prosecution <\/p>\n
had failed to prove that Ramphal had concocted  a story  in order to <\/p>\n
falsely   implicate   Indresh   Kumar   in   a   case   under   Section   107\/151 <\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.   relating   to   the   earlier   incident   of   beating   the   accused.     The <\/p>\n
High   Court   also   found   fault   with   the   late   lodging   of   the   First <\/p>\n
                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
Information Report and that is how the High Court allowed the appeal <\/p>\n
and   set   aside   the   conviction   and   the   sentence   of   Ramphal <\/p>\n
(respondent No.1 herein).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.      Very significantly there is not even one word about the six other <\/p>\n
accused   persons   whose   acquittal   was   also   challenged   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant   Indresh   Kumar   by   filing   a   separate   revision   against   their <\/p>\n
acquittal.  It is only in the operative part, the High Court mentions, `the <\/p>\n
petition is dismissed.   See detailed judgment in Criminal Appeal No. <\/p>\n
196-SB\/2001′.     Very   significantly   not   even   one   word   has   been <\/p>\n
mentioned by the High court in the said judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.      On   behalf   of   Indresh   Kumar   (appellant   herein),   Shri   Navin <\/p>\n
Chawla,   learned   counsel   appeared   and   pointed   out   as   to   how   the <\/p>\n
whole   judgment   of   the   High   Court   was   perverse.     Shri   Chawla <\/p>\n
produced   before   us,   firstly,   the   photocopy   of   the   document   in   the <\/p>\n
case which was allegedly initiated on the basis of the report by Anil <\/p>\n
Kumar against Indresh Kumar to the effect that he had come to his <\/p>\n
house and had fought with him wherein they had physical altercation. <\/p>\n
It   is   significant   to   note   that   on   the   basis   of   this   report,   the   police <\/p>\n
allegedly came to the residence of Anil Kumar and arrested both Anil <\/p>\n
                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumar   as   well   as   appellant   Indresh   Kumar   as   per   the   version   of <\/p>\n
Ramphal   (respondent   No.1-accused).     It   is   then   on   that   basis   that <\/p>\n
they   were   produced   in   the   morning   after   their   medical   examination <\/p>\n
before the Executive Magistrate dealing with the Chapter cases under <\/p>\n
Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     According to the police though the Magistrate had first passed <\/p>\n
an   order   against   Indresh   Kumar,   he   later   on   dropped   the <\/p>\n
proceedings.     Shri   Chawla   pointed   out   to   us   on   the   basis   of   the <\/p>\n
photocopies of the documents, that before the Magistrate, Anil Kumar <\/p>\n
had given a statement that he was picked up at 3 a.m. in the night <\/p>\n
and was kept in the police custody and he also went out to ask in the <\/p>\n
Court   as   to   why   he   was   taken   away.     The   argument   is   that   this <\/p>\n
document, if accepted, would completely falsify the story of Ramphal <\/p>\n
(respondent   No.1-accused)   that   he   had   picked   up   Indresh   Kumar <\/p>\n
(appellant herein) and Anil Kumar and had arrested them.   It is true <\/p>\n
that   Ramphal   (respondent   No.1-accused)   claims   to   have   picked   up <\/p>\n
Anil   Kumar   along   with   Indresh   Kumar   from   the   house.     However,   if <\/p>\n
Anil Kumar has disputed this very statement then the whole story put <\/p>\n
forth by Ramphal (respondent No.1-accused) that Indresh Kumar had <\/p>\n
gone to the house of Anil Kumar and had fought with him and it was <\/p>\n
                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
during   that   physical   altercation   that   Indresh   Kumar   got   injured, <\/p>\n
becomes a suspected story according to the Counsel. Unfortunately, <\/p>\n
the High Court has not adverted to this aspect at all.  <\/p>\n
8.     Shri   Navin   Chawla,   learned   counsel   then   produced   before   us <\/p>\n
the   original   certificate   by   which   Indresh   Kumar   was   referred   to   Dr. <\/p>\n
Kakkar and pointed out to us that in that certificate there is a clear cut <\/p>\n
overwriting and the words `LT’ have been changed by writing `R’ over <\/p>\n
the   letter   `L’.     Therefore,   the   original   words   suggesting   that   the <\/p>\n
fracture was on the left side left foot appears to have been changed <\/p>\n
by overwriting `R’ on the letter `L’.  Dr. Kakkar who was examined as <\/p>\n
PW-6,  in  his  evidence  undoubtedly   relied  on  this  medical  certificate <\/p>\n
and was cross-examined on this aspect.  The following admissions in <\/p>\n
the evidence were noted:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “There   is   overwriting   in   injury  No.1   regarding   the   foot   of <\/p>\n
              Indresh Kumar but I cannot say how it occurred.  I cannot <\/p>\n
              say whether that overwriting was done by me or someone <\/p>\n
              else but the same does not contain initials”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
9.     The learned counsel for the appellant further argues, that while <\/p>\n
the High Court discussed this aspect of the transfer of fracture from <\/p>\n
right foot to left foot, the High Court has not bothered to look into the <\/p>\n
                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence.  We feel the High Court was bound to consider not only the <\/p>\n
overwriting   over   Exhibit   PD   but   was   also   bound   to   take   into <\/p>\n
consideration   the  evidence   of  Dr.  B.B.Kakkar   (PW-6).    There   is  not <\/p>\n
even   a   mention   of   all   these   things   in   the   High   Court’s   order. <\/p>\n
Therefore, the basis of the High Court’s order about the prosecution <\/p>\n
story  being  false in respect  of  the  injury  suffered  by Indresh Kumar <\/p>\n
(appellant herein) is shattered, at least prima facie.<\/p>\n
10.    The   Counsel   further   rightly   contends   that   the   High   Court   has <\/p>\n
also   not   considered   the   other   evidence   like   the   evidence   of   Raj <\/p>\n
Kumar,   DSP   who   specifically   deposed   regarding   the   documents   in <\/p>\n
the case before the Executive Magistrate and there is no mention in <\/p>\n
the whole order regarding the way in which and the reason for which <\/p>\n
the proceedings against Indresh Kumar were dropped.  It is also seen <\/p>\n
from   the   High   Court’s   order   that   on   this   subject,   the   evidence   of <\/p>\n
Jagbir Singh (PW-19), Assistant in the office of Inspector General of <\/p>\n
Police   Rohtak   has   also   not   been   taken   into   consideration   which   is <\/p>\n
rather   surprising.     The   High   Court   was   bound   to   consider   the <\/p>\n
correctness of the story given by the accused that Indresh Kumar and <\/p>\n
Anil Kumar were arrested at the house of Anil Kumar and the injury <\/p>\n
suffered by Indresh Kumar was due to physical altercation. <\/p>\n
                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
11.    Not only was the evidence of Jaswant Singh (PW-20) totally left <\/p>\n
out of consideration which was very relevant to test the story of the <\/p>\n
appellant about the incident on 26.06.1992, the High Court has also <\/p>\n
not bothered to consider the evidence of Triloki Nath (PW-21),  who <\/p>\n
specifically spoke and proved the hand writing and signature of Anil <\/p>\n
Kumar   on   the   document   wherein   Anil   Kumar   had   specifically <\/p>\n
complained that he was picked up at 3 O’clock in the night.   He did <\/p>\n
not know as to why he was  arrested.   The whole  basis of the High <\/p>\n
Court’s   order   was   the   falsity   regarding   the   foot   on   which   Indresh <\/p>\n
Kumar   suffered   fracture   as   also   the   correctness   of   the   version   of <\/p>\n
Ramphal   (respondent   No.1-accused)   that   there   was   an   altercation <\/p>\n
between   Anil   Kumar   and   Indresh   Kumar   on   26.06.1992   and   in   that <\/p>\n
altercation, he suffered injuries.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    Once   it   is   found   that   the   High   Court   has   not   taken   into <\/p>\n
consideration   any   of   these   vital   pieces   of   evidence,   it   becomes <\/p>\n
difficult to uphold the order of the High Court.   This is apart from the <\/p>\n
fact that the High Court has not uttered one word about the criminal <\/p>\n
revision   which   was   filed   by   Indresh   Kumar   against   the   other   six-<\/p>\n
accused   persons   also   vide   Criminal   Revision   No.   1018   of   2001, <\/p>\n
except dismissing the same.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
13.    However,   Shri   Chawla   stated   that   it   was   not   possible   for   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   to   convert   the   acquittal   against   Ramphal   (respondent <\/p>\n
No.1-accused)   in   a   criminal   revision.     He,   therefore,   did   not   pursue <\/p>\n
the   matter   against   the   six   accused   persons   who   were   acquitted   by <\/p>\n
the Trial Court and whose acquittal was challenged by the appellant <\/p>\n
in   a   criminal   revision   in   the   High   Court.     However,   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
ought to have given some reasons regarding the acquittal of those six <\/p>\n
persons before dismissing the criminal revision.  <\/p>\n
14.    Shri Sushil Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents tried to <\/p>\n
support   the   acquittal   order   pointing   out   that   Ramphal   (respondent <\/p>\n
No.1-accused)   is   now   retired.     He   also   pointed   out   that   once   there <\/p>\n
was   an   acquittal   of   all   the   accused   from   the   charge   of   criminal <\/p>\n
conspiracy   then   there   would   be   no   question   of   proceeding   even <\/p>\n
against   the   present   accused   Ramphal.   The   contention   is   clearly <\/p>\n
incorrect   for   the   simple   reason   that   individual   role   of   Ramphal   is <\/p>\n
being highlighted by the prosecution and not his role as a conspirator. <\/p>\n
Therefore, even if the charge of conspiracy failed and, if the individual <\/p>\n
act   is   established,   the   accused   would   still   be   guilty.     It   was   also <\/p>\n
suggested that the possible view of acquittal was taken by High Court <\/p>\n
and, therefore, we should not interfere with the acquittal.  <\/p>\n
                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
15.    We cannot come to the definite conclusion that the High Court <\/p>\n
has   taken   possible   view   as   the   High   Court   has   not   considered   the <\/p>\n
evidence   which   it   was   bound   to   consider.     In   that   view,   we   would <\/p>\n
remand   the   matter   back   to   the   High   Court   for   fresh   consideration. <\/p>\n
We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   since   the   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
appellant   was   not   interested   in   proceeding   against   the   other   six <\/p>\n
accused   for   the   obvious   difficulties,   the   High   Court   will   do   well   in <\/p>\n
considering   only   the   case   against   accused   Ramphal   without   being <\/p>\n
influenced by any of our observations against the other  co-accused <\/p>\n
persons.  The High Court shall be free to consider the matter afresh. <\/p>\n
The appeals, therefore, succeed.  The judgment of the High Court is <\/p>\n
set aside in terms stated above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (V.S. Sirpurkar)<\/p>\n
                                                    ……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
January 6, 2010.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                   14<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Digital Performa\n\n\n1.    Case No.                :     Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003\n\n\n2.    Cause title             :     Indresh Kumar\n\n                                          Versus\n\n                                    Ram Phal & Ors.\n\n\n3.    Judgment heard by       :     Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar     \n\n                                    Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma\n\n\n4.    Judgment reserved by    :     Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar\n\n\n5.    Date of C.A.V.          :     24.11.2009\n\n\n6.    Date of pronouncement of\n\n      Judgment                :     06.01.2010 (Wednesday)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Mukundakam Sharma 1 “Reportable” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 125-126 OF 2003 Indresh Kumar …. Appellant Versus Ram Phal & Ors. ……Respondents J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-172562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 - 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\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-19T23:05:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T23:05:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2640,\"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\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T23:05:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 - 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\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-19T23:05:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T23:05:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010"},"wordCount":2640,"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\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010","name":"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T23:05:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indresh-kumar-vs-ram-phal-ors-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indresh Kumar vs Ram Phal & Ors on 6 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/172562","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=172562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}