{"id":172808,"date":"1998-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998"},"modified":"2015-09-26T06:37:25","modified_gmt":"2015-09-26T01:07:25","slug":"panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPANCHHI AND OTHERS, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UP AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/08\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t    With<br \/>\n\t    Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 50 of 1998<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nThomas J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Bad blood\twhich existed  between two  families  living<br \/>\nnext door to each other resulted in the extermination of all<br \/>\nthe adult  members of one family and the consequent judicial<br \/>\nverdict to  sent all  the living members of the other family<br \/>\nto gallows. Four members of the family of the accused became<br \/>\nkillers of  four members of the other family irrespective of<br \/>\ngender differences  on both sides. A glimpse at the injuries<br \/>\non the\tmangled dead  bodies would  have  convinced  the  on<br \/>\nlookers that  non among\t the victims  could have  been saved<br \/>\neven with  most advanced  sophisticated medical\t facilities.<br \/>\nDeath of  all of  them would  have been\t instantaneous. Such<br \/>\ninjuries clearly  reflected the\t resolve of the killers that<br \/>\nevery one  of the  victims should  have been  snuffed out of<br \/>\ntheir worldly existence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Facts are too brief for claboration. The house were all<br \/>\nthe accused  were living  is situate  adjacent to  the house<br \/>\nwhere all  the deceased\t were living first appellant Panchhi<br \/>\nand his\t wife Kalia  were the  parents of  second  appellant<br \/>\nManmohan  and  their  appellant\t Smt.  Ramshree.  Among\t the<br \/>\nvictims deceased  Banke Lal  was the husband of deceased Pan<br \/>\nKunwar, his  mother Halki  was aged  70 and  a little female<br \/>\nchild Sonu  aged only  5 then was the daughter of Banke Lal.<br \/>\nThis quadruple murder took place during the forenoon of 26th<br \/>\nOctober, 1989 , inside and outside the house of the victims.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According to  the prosecution  story, the\ttwo families<br \/>\nwere on\t a warpath  for some  time and\tthe members  of both<br \/>\nfamilies chose\tto indulge  in\tpetty  quarrels.  bad  blood<br \/>\nstarted fomenting  up. A fortnight prior to the incident two<br \/>\nfemale members\tof accused family (Kalia and Ramshree ) gave<br \/>\na rubbing  to Pan  Kunwar. Though the matter was reported to<br \/>\nthe police  there was  no abatement of the hostility between<br \/>\nthe two\t families. So Banke Lal and Pan Kunwar retaliated to<br \/>\nRamshree by  assaulting her  just  six\tdays  prior  to\t the<br \/>\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Further story  of the  prosecution is,  on the  date of<br \/>\noccurrence all\tthe  assailants,  armed\t with  weapons\tlike<br \/>\nkulhari and hansia, bargod into the house of the deceased at<br \/>\nabout 10.30  am and  unleashed a killing spree. First target<br \/>\nwas Banke  Lal, on  seeing the\tplight of her son his mother<br \/>\nHalki instinctively  leaned to\tprotect him  but one  of the<br \/>\nassailants swished  a that  weapon on  her neck and finished<br \/>\nher. Pan Kunwar, wife of Banke Lal, made a bid to escape and<br \/>\nshe jumped  out of  the house with her little daughter Sonu.<br \/>\nBut the\t bid failed  as the  assailants rushed out and dealt<br \/>\ndeadly blows  with weapons on the vital parts of their body.<br \/>\nAfter accomplishing  their target  they retreated  to  their<br \/>\nhouse.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Kalia could  not face  the trial as she died before its<br \/>\ncommencement. The  remaining three appellants were tried for<br \/>\nthe murders  of the deceased. Trial court and the High Court<br \/>\nconcurrently found  that the  four deceased were murdered by<br \/>\nthe four  assailants who  are appellants and Kalia. Both the<br \/>\ncourts held  the view  that in\tthe  brutal  nature  of\t the<br \/>\nperpetration  of  the  murders\textreme\t penalty  should  be<br \/>\nimposed and  hence the\ttrial court  sentenced them to death<br \/>\nwhich was affirmed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It seems,\tthere was initially no move to approach this<br \/>\nCourt for  some time  after pronouncement of the judgment by<br \/>\nthe High  Court in  appeal. But\t the print media flashed the<br \/>\nnews that Ramshree (mother of the suckling child) was facing<br \/>\nexecution of  the capital  sentence. Some organisations came<br \/>\nforward taking\tup her\tcause.\tHowever,  in  the  meanwhile<br \/>\nappellants filed  the special  leave petition  and leave was<br \/>\ngranted by  this Court.\t Execution of the death sentence was<br \/>\nstayed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We heard  Shri RK\tJain, learned  Senior  Advocate\t who<br \/>\nappeared for  the appellant  and Shri  RB Malhotra,  learned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate\t for the  State of  UP. Smt  Indira Jaising,<br \/>\nSenior Advocate\t prayed for allowing National Commission for<br \/>\nWomen to  intervene presumably\tto bolster up the cause that<br \/>\nRamshree must be saved from gallows. We could not permit the<br \/>\nmove for  intervention in  this appeal of the obvious reason<br \/>\nthat  under   the  Code\t  of  Criminal\t procedure  National<br \/>\nCommission of  Women or\t any other  organisation cannot have<br \/>\nlocus standi in this murder case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     There cannot  any dispute,\t nor has  it  been  disputed<br \/>\nbefore us,  that the  four deceased  were brutally  murdered<br \/>\ninside their  house on\tthe forenoon of 26.10.1989. The only<br \/>\narea where  the dispute was focussed related to the identify<br \/>\nof the\tassailants, as\tthe appellants\thave totally  denied<br \/>\ntheir involvement in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Prosecution examined PW 1(Ramkhelawan s\/o Bankelal) who<br \/>\nwas child  witness. He\thas stated  that while he was taking<br \/>\nlunch around 1 am all the four accused entered his house and<br \/>\nkilled his  father and\tgrandmother inside the house and the<br \/>\nassailants killed  his mother and sister who were out on the<br \/>\nChabutara. Just\t when the incident started  PW 1 Ramkhelawan<br \/>\nslipped out  of house  and hid\thimself in a house of one of<br \/>\nthe   closest neighbours.  Besides that witness, prosecution<br \/>\nexamined PW3  Lakahnlal and  PW5 Shambhu Dayal as witness to<br \/>\nthe occurrence.\t According to  PW3, he\tsaw the four accused<br \/>\nentering the house of the deceased armed with weapons and he<br \/>\nsaw them  while he  was standing on the verandah of a barber<br \/>\nshop situated very near to the place of occurrence. He heard<br \/>\ntantrums of victims from inside the house of occurrence When<br \/>\nhe neared  the Chauraha\t (junction )  which was located very<br \/>\nclose, he  saw Pan  Kuwar and Sonu who were standing outside<br \/>\ntheir house,  and within  a few\t second the  four assailants<br \/>\nemerged out  of the  house and killed them with the weapons.<br \/>\nPW5 also gave evidence almost in the same line as PW3 said.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As pointed\t out above,  the trial\tcourt and  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt placed reliance on the evidence of the aforesaid three<br \/>\nwitnesses and  reached the  conclusion that the murders were<br \/>\ncommitted by the three appellants an Kalia.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri RK Jain, learned Senior Counsel, contended that it<br \/>\nis very risky to place reliance on the evidence of PW1 being<br \/>\na child\t witness. According to the learned counsel, evidence<br \/>\nof a  child witness is generally unworthy credence. Bu we do<br \/>\nnot subscribe  to the  view that  the evidence\tof  a  child<br \/>\nwitness would  always stand irretrievable stigmatized. It is<br \/>\nnot the\t law that if a witness is a child his evidence shall<br \/>\nbe rejected, even if it is a found reliable. The law is that<br \/>\nevidence  of\ta  child  witness  must\t be  evaluated\tmore<br \/>\ncarefully and with greater circumspection because a child is<br \/>\nsusceptible to be swayed by what others toll them and thus a<br \/>\nchild witness is an easy prey to tutoring.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Courts have  laid down that evidence of a child witness<br \/>\nmust find  adequate corroboration before it is relied on. It<br \/>\nis more a rule of practical wisdom than of law [vide Prakash<br \/>\nand another  vs. State\tof Madhya  Pradesh, [  1992 (4)\t SCC<br \/>\n225]; Baby  Kandayanathi vs.  State of\tBihar [AIR  1996  SC<br \/>\n1613] and  <a href=\"\/doc\/153654\/\">Dattu Ramrao\t Sakhare and  others  vs.  State  of<br \/>\nMaharashtra<\/a> [1997 (5) SCC 341].\n<\/p>\n<p>     PW 1  Ramkhelawan is  one of  the two  survivors in the<br \/>\nfamily (the  other was\ta suckling  child).  It\t is  greatly<br \/>\nprobable that  PW1 would have escaped form the notice of the<br \/>\nassailants otherwise  he would\tnot have  been spared  as is<br \/>\nclear from  the fact  that his\tyounger sister Sonu was also<br \/>\nmurdered. His  narration of  the incident  was quite natural<br \/>\nthough he saw only some part of the occurrence. That part is<br \/>\nso decisive as to clear all doubts regarding identity of the<br \/>\nassailants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     PW3 and  PW5 were\tadmittedly neighbours. The fact that<br \/>\nthey did  not see  all what happened inside the house of the<br \/>\ndecease d  is no  reason  to  take  their  evidence  lightly<br \/>\nbecause when  he saw  all the  appellants sitting inside the<br \/>\nhouse variously\t armed and  they also  saw that\t all of them<br \/>\nreturning from\tthe house  after  the  incident\t with  blood<br \/>\nsoaked weapons\twe have\t no doubt  that the  High Court\t has<br \/>\nrightly concurred  with the  findings  of  the\ttrial  court<br \/>\nregarding reliability  of the  testimony of  the above three<br \/>\nwitnesses. There is no scope to contended that there was any<br \/>\nserious error  in the  appreciation  of\t the  evidence.\t The<br \/>\nresultant position is that none of the appellants can escape<br \/>\nconviction under Section 302\/34 of the Indian Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The trial\tcourt and the High Court chose death penalty<br \/>\nfor the\t appellants Shri  RK Jain  made a  fervent plea that<br \/>\nimposition of the extreme penalty as for all the accused was<br \/>\nnot legally  justified in this case. According to him, death<br \/>\npenalty awarded\t to the\t three persons one a septuagenarian,<br \/>\nanother a  youth in  his prime\tage, and  the third a mother<br \/>\nwith a\tsuckling chills\t is unwarranted\t since this case did<br \/>\nnot project  any special feature as distinguished form other<br \/>\nbrutal murder  cases in spite of the number of victims being<br \/>\nfor including  a child.\t Learned counsel  contended that the<br \/>\nnumber of  victims is  not sufficient  to make\tthe case  so<br \/>\nspecial as  to foreclose  the next alternative sentence i.e.<br \/>\nimprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n<p>     When  the\tConstitution  Bench  of\t this  Court,  by  a<br \/>\nmajority,  upheld   the\t constitutional\t validity  of  death<br \/>\nsentence in  Bachan Singh  vs. State of Punjab [1980 92) SCC<br \/>\n684] this  Court took  particular care\tto  say\t that  death<br \/>\nsentence shall\tnot normally  be awarded  for the offence of<br \/>\nmurder and  that it  must be  confined to the rarest of rare<br \/>\ncases when  the alternative  option is\tforeclosed. In other<br \/>\nwords, the  Constitution Bachan\t did not find death sentence<br \/>\nvalid in  all cases  except in\tthe aforesaid freaks wherein<br \/>\nthe  lessor  sentence  would  be,  by  any  account,  wholly<br \/>\ninadequate. <a href=\"\/doc\/545301\/\">In\tMachhi Singh  and others vs. State of Punjab<\/a><br \/>\n[1983 (3)  SCC 470]  a three judge bench of this court while<br \/>\nfollowing  the\tratio  in  Bachan  Singh&#8217;s  case  laid\tdown<br \/>\ncertain. guidelines among which the following is relevant in<br \/>\nthe present case:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8221; A  balance-sheet\t of  aggravating<br \/>\n     and mitigating circumstances has to<br \/>\n     be drawn  up and  in doing\t so  the<br \/>\n     mitigating circumstances have to be<br \/>\n     accorded full  weightage and a just<br \/>\n     balance has  to be\t struck\t between<br \/>\n     the aggravating  and the mitigating<br \/>\n     circumstances before  the option is<br \/>\n     exercised.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In Allauddin  Mian and  others vs. State of Bihar [1989<br \/>\n(3) SCC 5] ( Ahmadi j. as he then was speaking for the Bench<br \/>\nhas stressed  the need\tthat the  judge should\tindicate The<br \/>\nbasis upon  which he  considers\t sentence  of  that  extreme<br \/>\nmagnitude justified.  It has  been observed  in the decision<br \/>\nthat:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Where a  sentence of  severity  is<br \/>\n     imposed, it  is imperative that the<br \/>\n     judge  should  indicate  the  basis<br \/>\n     upon which he considers a sentenced<br \/>\n     of that magnitude justified. Unless<br \/>\n     there are\tspecial reasons. Special<br \/>\n     to\t the  facts  of\t the  particular<br \/>\n     case, which  can be  catalogued  as<br \/>\n     justifying a  severe punishment the<br \/>\n     judge would  not  award  the  death<br \/>\n     sentence.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     As for  the present  case the  trial Court advanced the<br \/>\nfollowing reasons  in justification  of the  award of  death<br \/>\nsentence:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8221; The accused were not satisfied by<br \/>\n     causing two  or four  injuries  and<br \/>\n     they made\t27 attacks  by axes  and<br \/>\n     daranti. The man when turns a beast<br \/>\n     from a  human being even then there<br \/>\n     must be  a limit of his revenge but<br \/>\n     in\t this  case  there  remained  no<br \/>\n     limit of  revenge and  four  brutal<br \/>\n     murders were committed in the broad<br \/>\n     day light.\t This act of the accused<br \/>\n     was against  the normal  conduct of<br \/>\n     the man.  Hence in\t my  opinion  it<br \/>\n     would be proper that the accused be<br \/>\n     awarded the death penalty.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     While concurring  with  the  above\t conclusion  learned<br \/>\njudges of  the High  court of  Allahabad have  set down\t the<br \/>\nfollowing reasons:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8221; The appellants were the next door<br \/>\n     neighbours of the deceased persons.<br \/>\n     They should  have lived  like  good<br \/>\n     neighbours, but all the for persons<br \/>\n     took  Kulhari   and  Hansiya,  went<br \/>\n     inside the\t house of Bankey Lal and<br \/>\n     butchered all  the for  persons one<br \/>\n     by one.  We have  seen  the  injury<br \/>\n     reports and it is apparent that all<br \/>\n     the four persons had been butchered<br \/>\n     like goat.\t The  persons  who  have<br \/>\n     become so\tcruel do not deserve any<br \/>\n     leneiency or  mercy by  the  Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     The    attack    was    deliberate,<br \/>\n     calculated and the appellants fully<br \/>\n     know what they were doing.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     We have  extracted the  above reasons of the two courts<br \/>\nonly to\t point out  that it is the savagery or brutal manner<br \/>\nin which  the killer  perpetrated the  acts on\tthe  victims<br \/>\nincluding one  little child,  which has\t persuaded  the\t two<br \/>\ncourts to  choose death\t sentence to  four persons. No doubt<br \/>\nbrutally  looms\t  large\t in   the  murders   in\t this\tcase<br \/>\nparticularly of\t the old  and also the tender aged child. It<br \/>\nmay  be\t  that\tthe   manner  in  which\t the  killings\twere<br \/>\nperpetrated may\t not by\t itself show  any lighter  side, but<br \/>\nthat is not very peculiar or very special in those killings.<br \/>\nBrutality of  the manner  in which  a murder was perpetrated<br \/>\nmay be\ta ground  but not  the sole  criterion\tfor  judging<br \/>\nwhether the  case is  one of  the &#8221; rarest of rare cases&#8221; as<br \/>\nindicated in  Bachan Singh&#8217;s  case in  a way every murder is<br \/>\nbrutal, and  the difference  between the  one from the other<br \/>\nmay be\ton account  of mitigating  or  aggravating  features<br \/>\nsurrounding the murder.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  incidents  which  happened  on  earlier  occasions<br \/>\nbetween members\t of the two rival families are indicative of<br \/>\nthe intensity  of the  bitterness  which  prevailed  between<br \/>\nthem.  It  was\tthirst\tfor  retaliation  which\t became\t the<br \/>\nmotivating factor.  Attacks and counter-attacks between them<br \/>\nwere frequent  events during  the preceding  days. There  is<br \/>\nevidence that  six days\t before this  occurrence two elderly<br \/>\npersons of  the deceased  family (Banke\t Lal and  Pan Kuwar)<br \/>\nattacked the  young female  member  of\tthe  accused  family<br \/>\n(Ramshree).  The  brutality  with  which  the  murders\twere<br \/>\ncommitted by  The assailants  which include two ladies makes<br \/>\nus to  think that  more skirmishes would have happened prior<br \/>\nto the\tincident which\twould have  escalated the  simmering<br \/>\nthirst for vengeance to each boiling point.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  persuaded to  consider that this case cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as  one of  the &#8220;rarest\t of rare  cases&#8221;  where\t the<br \/>\nlessor sentence\t is not\t at all adequate. Hence we alter the<br \/>\nsentence of  death  penalty  by\t awarding  the\tsentence  of<br \/>\nimprisonment for life to each of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      The appeals are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      The Writ Petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: PANCHHI AND OTHERS, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UP AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/08\/1998 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI ACT: HEADNOTE: [&hellip;]<\/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-172808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-26T01:07:25+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T01:07:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2412,\"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\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T01:07:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-26T01:07:25+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T01:07:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998"},"wordCount":2412,"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\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998","name":"Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T01:07:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchhi-and-others-national-vs-state-of-up-and-others-on-19-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Panchhi And Others, National &#8230; vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/172808","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=172808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}