{"id":172597,"date":"2010-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-28T20:01:29","modified_gmt":"2017-12-28T14:31:29","slug":"ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010<\/div>\n
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                 PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                      Criminal Appeal No. 1744\/1995\n\n                 1.     Ramesh, S\/o Ram Prasad,\n                        aged about 18 years.\n                 2.     Babloo @ Jitendra, S\/o Chhotte Lal Yadav\n                        aged about 18 years\n                 Both are residents of Umaria, Police Station\n                 Barela,\n                 Distt. Jabalpur\n\n                                   Versus\n\n                 The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n      -------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellants : Shri Surenda Singh, learned Sr. Counsel\n                         with Shri Shivam Singh,Advocate.\n\nFor the State:           Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\n      -------------------------------------------------------------------\nPRESENT :\n\n                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki\n\n                                          Date of hearing: 20\/08\/2010\n                                       Date of Judgment: 25\/08\/2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        The VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur,<\/p>\n
vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.95, in Sessions<\/p>\n
Trial      No.         828\/92      recorded          conviction        of<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused under Section 304 II of IPC,<\/p>\n
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4<\/p>\n
years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000\/- with default<\/p>\n
stipulation.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Being         aggrieved,      appellants\/accused           have<\/p>\n
preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
\n Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.08.92<\/p>\n
in the evening appellants were playing with Rajesh<\/p>\n
(deceased) in the cattle pound of village. Appellants<\/p>\n
returned to their home but deceased did not. Father of<\/p>\n
the    deceased    Harilal(PW-1)   during   search    asked<\/p>\n
appellant Babloo regarding deceased but he did not give<\/p>\n
any information. Munnulal(PW-2) peon of Kanji House,<\/p>\n
when went in cattle pound to care cattles he saw the<\/p>\n
dead body of Rajesh there. Munnulal(PW-2) lodged marg<\/p>\n
intimation to Police Station Barela. Marg was registered<\/p>\n
vide No. 30\/92. During the investigation of marg dead<\/p>\n
body was sent to post-mortem. Dr. D.K. Sakalle<\/p>\n
performed the autopsy on the dead body and opined that<\/p>\n
death was due to strangulation.\n<\/p>\n
4.     It was further alleged that on 11.8.92 deceased<\/p>\n
was last seen together with the appellants. Appellants<\/p>\n
were    arrested   and   they   were   sent   for    medical<\/p>\n
examination. Dr. Bajpai(PW-12) found simple injuries on<\/p>\n
their hands.\n<\/p>\n
5.     After usual investigation appellants\/accused were<\/p>\n
charge-sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
6.     The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication.\n<\/p>\n
7.     On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned
\n Additional Session Judge found them guilty of the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 304 II of IPC and convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced, as mentioned hereinabove.<\/p>\n
8.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that<\/p>\n
there is not eye witness in this case. Prosecution based<\/p>\n
on circumstantial evidence. Firstly circumstance of last<\/p>\n
seen together is not proved beyond reasonable doubts.<\/p>\n
Secondly mere recovery is not evidence enough to<\/p>\n
convict appellants. Thirdly injuries found on the person of<\/p>\n
appellants was 6 to 7 days old and according to Dr.<\/p>\n
Girish Bajpai(PW-5) those could have been caused by<\/p>\n
fall. In the circumstances, trial Court failed to appreciate<\/p>\n
the evidence on record in its proper perspective.<\/p>\n
Therefore prays for setting aside the finding and<\/p>\n
sentence recorded by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
9.      On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer justified<\/p>\n
and supported the finding recorded by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
10.     It is true that there is no direct evidence in this<\/p>\n
case.     Prosecution    case    is     based   on    three<\/p>\n
circumstances :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)     The deceased was seen last together with the<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    Recovery of Rs. 30\/- from the appellant no.<\/p>\n
1\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   Injuries found on the person of appellants\/accused
\n remained unexplained..\n<\/p>\n
11.   It was not disputed that Rajesh(deceased) died<\/p>\n
homicidal death. Dr. D.K. Sakalle(PW-6) performed<\/p>\n
autopsy on the dead body on 13.8.92. He found 8 injuries<\/p>\n
on the body of deceased and opined that cause of death<\/p>\n
was due to strangulation i.e. throttling therefore, it is<\/p>\n
proved that Rajesh died homicidal death.<\/p>\n
12.   The prosecution examined as many as 13<\/p>\n
witnesses to substantiate his case. Mahesh(PW-3) and<\/p>\n
Santosh(PW-7) are witnesses to the fact of last seen<\/p>\n
together.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Mahesh(PW-3) is the brother of deceased and he<\/p>\n
deposed     that   appellant\/accused   Babloo(A-2)   taken<\/p>\n
Rajesh(deceased) with him after calling him from the<\/p>\n
house. He further deposed that when he went to throw<\/p>\n
ash he saw that his brother Rajesh and both appellants<\/p>\n
were in the kanji house. He further deposed that when he<\/p>\n
was returning he listened the sound of damadam. When<\/p>\n
Rajesh was not returned in night, on third day dead body<\/p>\n
of Rajesh found in the kanji house. But the facts like<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused Babloo taken his brother with him after<\/p>\n
calling from the house and he listened the sound of<\/p>\n
damadam from the kanji house and Rajesh(deceased)<\/p>\n
was playing in the parchhi of kanji house were not found<\/p>\n
place in his statement recorded under Section 161 of
\n Cr.P.C.(Ex.D-2). There are material improvement before<\/p>\n
the Court which goes to the root of the case.<\/p>\n
14.    One more thing is observed that when Rajesh was<\/p>\n
not returned to home in night and according to witness<\/p>\n
Mahesh(PW-3) his mother and father were searching<\/p>\n
Rajesh in night. If Mahesh had seen him in the kanji<\/p>\n
house then it should be natural for him to narrate this fact<\/p>\n
to his parents and would have been inspected kanji<\/p>\n
house then and there. In these circumstances, reliance<\/p>\n
can not be placed on his testimony.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Santosh(PW-7) deposed that when he was going<\/p>\n
with   Mahesh(PW-3)       to    his    new   house    he   saw<\/p>\n
Rajesh(deceased) was playing with appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
in kanji house. He admitted that at that time other<\/p>\n
students of school were also playing near by to the kanji<\/p>\n
house. Santosh(PW-7) claims that he went with Mahesh<\/p>\n
(PW-3) but this fact was not deposed by Mahesh. In this<\/p>\n
way presence of this witness became doubtful with the<\/p>\n
Mahesh. Further more according to him, when he saw<\/p>\n
deceased was playing with the appellants, at the same<\/p>\n
time, other students of the school were also playing near<\/p>\n
by the Kanji house. In these circumstances, fact of last<\/p>\n
seen    together   seen        by     Santosh(PW-7)   became<\/p>\n
immaterial.\n<\/p>\n
16.    Further, Harilal(PW-1) deposed that when he was
\n searching his son Rajesh(deceased), he enquired from<\/p>\n
the appellant\/accused Babloo(A-2) but he did not say any<\/p>\n
thing to him. He further deposed that when police asked<\/p>\n
Babloo then he disclosed that he, Ramesh and          and<\/p>\n
Rajesh were playing. But he went to his home and<\/p>\n
Ramesh(A-1) was continued to play with Rajesh. This<\/p>\n
second pat of his statement is not admissible in<\/p>\n
evidence. Because this fact was claimed to be narrated<\/p>\n
before the police officer. Regarding first part that<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused Babloo(A-2) did not disclose any thing<\/p>\n
to Harilal can not clinch the issue unless, one start with<\/p>\n
the presumption that the appellants had committed the<\/p>\n
crime.\n<\/p>\n
17.      R.S. Patel(PW-13), Investigating Officer, deposed<\/p>\n
that he seized money at he instance of appellant<\/p>\n
Ramesh(A-1) from the corner of kanji house vide (Ex.<\/p>\n
P-4) and some other money was scattered on spot vide<\/p>\n
Ex. P-10.\n<\/p>\n
18.      Panch witnesses Munnulal(PW-2) Ganesh Prasad<\/p>\n
(PW-4)       both    of   them    not    supported    that<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused Ramesh(A-1) disclosed any thing<\/p>\n
before them. They only deposed that there was a seizure<\/p>\n
from      appellant\/accused    Ramesh(A-1).    In    these<\/p>\n
circumstances,        money      was     concealed     by<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused Ramesh(A-1) remained doubtful and
\n mere seizure of money from the spot can not said to be<\/p>\n
clinching   evidence     against    the   appellant\/accused<\/p>\n
Ramesh(A-1).\n<\/p>\n
19.   Dr. Bajpai(PW-12) deposed that he examined<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused Ramesh (A-1) on 16.8.92 and found<\/p>\n
abrasion on the root of little and middle finger, semicircle<\/p>\n
2 mm on size. It was simple in nature and caused by<\/p>\n
hard and blunt object like nail mark and was 4 to 5 days<\/p>\n
old. He further deposed that he examined Babloo (A-2)<\/p>\n
on the same and found :- (i) abrasion size 3″ x 1 cm on<\/p>\n
the rout of the nail, (ii) Abrasion on upper lip, 2x2mm, (iii)<\/p>\n
contusion on forehead 3×2 mm, (iv) abrasion 2×2 mm on<\/p>\n
post aspect of palm. All were simple in nature and could<\/p>\n
be caused by hard and blunt object. Injury no. 4 may be<\/p>\n
caused by nail of finger. Duration was 4 to 5 days. He<\/p>\n
admitted that injury on the head may be caused by fall or<\/p>\n
my be caused by stone. He further admitted that he did<\/p>\n
not mention the colour of abrasion in his reports Ex. P-6<\/p>\n
and P-19 and he further admitted that injuries could be 6<\/p>\n
to 7 days old. He further admitted that they may be<\/p>\n
caused by thorn during the cutting of bari.<\/p>\n
20.   Learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
appellant failed to assign any explanation regarding their<\/p>\n
injuries during their statements under Section 313 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. and they only stated ignorance. On the contrary
\n learned counsel for the appellant argued that they had<\/p>\n
explained their case through cross examination of expert<\/p>\n
witness Dr. Bajpai.\n<\/p>\n
21.   Dr. Bajpai(PW-5 and 12) admitted that he did not<\/p>\n
mention the colour of the injuries, also duration of injury<\/p>\n
may be 6 to 7 days and they may be caused by thorn. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances it can not be said that accused<\/p>\n
persons failed to explain their injuries. Both the<\/p>\n
appellants are students of school, after finishing school<\/p>\n
they were playing here and there and they might receive<\/p>\n
such type of abrasion during their play. Hence this<\/p>\n
circumstance is also not clinching evidence, against the<\/p>\n
accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
22.   As discussed hereinabove circumstances of last<\/p>\n
seen together is not proved beyond reasonable doubts<\/p>\n
and other circumstances also not found proved beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubts. Therefore, I am of the opinion that<\/p>\n
the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence in their<\/p>\n
proper perspective, therefore finding recorded by trial<\/p>\n
Court is unsustainable and liable to set side.<\/p>\n
23.   Resultantly, appeal succeeds. The finding and<\/p>\n
sentence recorded by trial Court is set aside and<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused acquitted to the charge under<\/p>\n
Section 304 II of IPC<\/p>\n
24.   The appellant are already on bail, their bail bond
\n and security bond stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      (G.S. Solanki)
\n                                         JUDGE
\n                                          25\/08\/2010<\/p>\n
ba\n  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1744\/1995 1. Ramesh, S\/o Ram Prasad, aged about 18 years. 2. Babloo @ Jitendra, S\/o Chhotte Lal Yadav aged about 18 years Both are residents of Umaria, […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 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\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-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=\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-28T14:31:29+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T14:31:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1519,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T14:31:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 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":"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 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\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-28T14:31:29+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T14:31:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010"},"wordCount":1519,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010","name":"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T14:31:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-anr-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 25 August, 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\/172597","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=172597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}