{"id":173086,"date":"2004-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004"},"modified":"2015-03-25T04:40:41","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T23:10:41","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B.N.Agrawal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, B.N.Agrawal.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  508 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Rajasthan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBhanwar Singh &amp; Others\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/05\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nY.K.SABHARWAL &amp;  B.N.AGRAWAL.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>WITH <\/p>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2004<br \/>\n(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 2247 of 2004)<br \/>\n(@ Crl. M.P. No. 219 OF 1995)<\/p>\n<p>Rajesh Solanki &amp; Anr.  Appellant <\/p>\n<p>Versus <\/p>\n<p>Bhanwar Singh &amp; Ors.   .Respondent (s)<\/p>\n<p>B.N.AGRAWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tApplication for permission to file SLP is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRespondents Bhanwar Singh and Dharma Ram along with accused<br \/>\nVishnu were tried and by judgment rendered by trial court, accused Vishnu was<br \/>\nacquitted of the charges whereas Bhanwar Singh (respondent No. 1) was<br \/>\nconvicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo<br \/>\nimprisonment for life.  He was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms<br \/>\nAct and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year<br \/>\nand to pay a fine of Rs. 200\/-, in default to undergo further rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment for a period of two months.  Dharma Ram  (respondent No. 2)<br \/>\nwas convicted under Section 302\/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced to<br \/>\nundergo imprisonment for life.  Apart from the sentence awarded against them,<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.1 &amp; 2 were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000\/- and<br \/>\nRs. 25,000\/- respectively by way of compensation to wife and children of<br \/>\ndeceased Arjun Singh.  The gun belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 was ordered to be forfeited to the State.  Against the order of<br \/>\nacquittal of accused Vishnu, no appeal was preferred but on appeal being<br \/>\npreferred by the respondents, their convictions have been set aside by the High<br \/>\nCourt and they have been acquitted of all the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProsecution case as disclosed in the first information report, in short,<br \/>\nwas that in the heart of town of Jodhpur, there was a building known as Sainla<br \/>\nHouse wherein Rajesh Solanki (PW 1) had taken a shop on rent and was<br \/>\nrunning a cycle shop therein.  After the induction of PW 1 as tenant in the said<br \/>\nshop, accused Bhanwar Singh purchased the said shop along with another<br \/>\nshop which was adjacent to it and after purchase, PW 1 became tenant of<br \/>\nBhanwar Singh.  In another shop, Bhanwar Singh was carrying on business in<br \/>\nthe name and style of Chamunda Traders.  Roofs of both the aforesaid shops<br \/>\nwere in use of PW 1 for which there was a dispute between him and accused<br \/>\nBhanwar Singh leading to filing of several cases.  On Ist June, 1989 between<br \/>\n6.30 and 7.30 in the evening, when PW 1 was going on the roof top of the said<br \/>\nshops, he was stopped by Bhanwar Singh and abused.  At that time, accused<br \/>\nDharma Ram and Vishnu were also present there.  Thereupon, PW 1 went to<br \/>\nhis uncle Arjun Singh who was running a provisional store in the same very<br \/>\nbuilding, called him and when he came, he told Bhanwar Singh that the roofs of<br \/>\nthe shops were always in the use of PW 1.  Thereupon when PW 1 again<br \/>\nwanted to go to the roof, Bhanwar Singh asked him not to go failing which he<br \/>\nwould be shot. Then accused Dharma Ram and Vishnu shouted that PW1<br \/>\nshould be shot.  Bhanwar Singh thereafter went to his room, brought his gun<br \/>\nand told Arjun Singh that he would give full right of use of the roofs to PW 1 and<br \/>\nby uttering these words, he fired at Arjun Singh which hit him on the right thigh<br \/>\nas a result of which Arjun Singh fell down.  The occurrence is said to have been<br \/>\nwitnessed by Md. Sabir (PW 4), Achal Dass (PW 7), Mst. Ummed Kumari (PW\n<\/p>\n<p>9) and Mst. Chandrakanta (PW 18) apart from the complainant Rajesh Solanki<br \/>\n(PW 1).   After the occurrence, PW 1 went to the police outpost where he<br \/>\nnarrated the occurrence before a constable who telephonically informed the<br \/>\npolice control room about the same and asked PW 1 to go to the control room<br \/>\nwhereupon PW 1 went to the police control room where he came to know that<br \/>\nthe police had already left for the place of occurrence.  Thereupon, PW 1 came<br \/>\nback to the place of occurrence and reported the matter to the police on the<br \/>\nbasis of which a case was registered at the police station under Section 307 of<br \/>\nthe Penal Code and the injured was shifted to hospital where later on he<br \/>\nsuccumbed to the injuries, as such case was converted into one under Section<br \/>\n302 of the Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe police after registering the case took up investigation, during the<br \/>\ncourse of which, witnesses stated that after the occurrence, PW 1 was chased<br \/>\nby accused Bhanwar Singh and while so chasing, the villagers who had already<br \/>\nassembled there, apprehended and assaulted him by his gun after snatching<br \/>\nthe same from him as a result of which butt of the gun was broken.  Upon<br \/>\ncompletion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and on<br \/>\ncompletion thereof, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the<br \/>\naforesaid three accused persons to the court of session to face trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDefence of the accused, in short, was that no occurrence as alleged had<br \/>\ntaken place.  The dispute between the parties over user of the roofs of the<br \/>\nshops by PW 1 has been, however, admitted.  PW 1 wanted to make some<br \/>\nconstruction over the roof which was objected to by accused Bhanwar Singh.<br \/>\nOn the date and time of occurrence, PW 1 came along with PW 4 and PW 7 in<br \/>\nthe room belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh, beat him and had broken the<br \/>\nwooden bed, table, telephone and glasses of almirah which were kept there.  At<br \/>\nthat time, Arjun Singh, uncle of PW 1 came there and took out gun belonging to<br \/>\naccused Bhanwar Singh which was kept in the room and tried to break that gun<br \/>\non the cemented floor in front of the room in order to save members of the<br \/>\nprosecution party, as a result of which, one live cartridge which was embedded<br \/>\nin the gun went off and hit Arjun Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDuring trial, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary<br \/>\nevidence and the trial court upon conclusion of trial while acquitting accused<br \/>\nVishnu, convicted the respondents as stated above and the same having been<br \/>\nreversed by the High Court, two appeals by special leave have been preferred<br \/>\nbefore this Court, one by the State of Rajasthan and another by the<br \/>\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMs. Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nState of Rajasthan as well as Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the complainant submitted in support of the appeal that<br \/>\norder of acquittal rendered by the High Court was perverse one as view taken<br \/>\nby it was not possible one, and accordingly, the same calls for interference by<br \/>\nthis Court.   On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that view taken by the High<br \/>\nCourt was not only possible one but the same was a reasonable view and the<br \/>\norder of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse in any manner.  Alternatively, it<br \/>\nwas submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that in the case<br \/>\non hand, two views were possible, the order of acquittal should not be<br \/>\ninterfered with as it is well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate<br \/>\ncourt should not interfere with the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the<br \/>\njudgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court is perverse one?  In the<br \/>\npresent case, five persons, namely, Rajesh Solanki (PW 1), Md. Sabir (PW 4),<br \/>\nAchal Dass (PW 7), Mst. Ummed Kumari (PW 9) and Mst. Chandrakanta (PW\n<\/p>\n<p>18) are said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence.  Out of these witnesses,<br \/>\nPW 4, PW7 and PW 9 have been declared hostile as they did not support the<br \/>\nprosecution case in material particulars.  PW 18 though claimed to be an eye<br \/>\nwitness and has supported the prosecution case but her name was not<br \/>\nmentioned in the first information report and she was examined by the police<br \/>\nafter 22 days of the occurrence and no explanation whatsoever has been<br \/>\nfurnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay in her examination by<br \/>\nthe police.   In view of the aforesaid facts, the High Court did not place reliance<br \/>\non the evidence of PW4, PW7, PW9 and PW 18 and learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the appellants could not point out any infirmity in the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment on this count.  They, however, contended that the High<br \/>\nCourt should have upheld conviction of the respondents on the basis of sole<br \/>\ntestimony of PW 1 who has supported the prosecution case in all material<br \/>\nparticulars.  From the impugned judgment, it would appear that the High Court<br \/>\ndoubted the prosecution case and refused to place reliance upon the evidence<br \/>\nof PW 1 as it was of the view that defence version may be reasonably possible<br \/>\nand has recorded following reasons for its conclusion :-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tAccording to the evidence of complainant-PW1 after the occurrence, he<br \/>\nwent to the police outpost and narrated the occurrence to the constable<br \/>\nAwardan posted there who telephonically informed the control room and<br \/>\nasked the complainant to go to the control room.  The constable could<br \/>\nhave been the best person to show as to what was the first version of<br \/>\nthe occurrence disclosed by the complainant before him.  But for the<br \/>\nreasons best known to the prosecution, he has been withheld from the<br \/>\nwitness box for which no explanation is forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tPW 1 stated that when Arjun Singh was taken to the hospital, he was<br \/>\nconscious.  PW 3 admitted that after the occurrence, when wife and<br \/>\nchildren of Arjun Singh came to the place of occurrence, he was<br \/>\nconscious.  It is not known what was narrated by Arjun Singh about the<br \/>\npresent occurrence to his wife and children.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tThe prosecution version that after the occurrence, while Bhanwar Singh<br \/>\nwas chasing PW1, he was apprehended by the villagers who snatched<br \/>\ngun from him and assaulted him with the same and while doing so, butt<br \/>\nof the gun was broken, was not disclosed in the first information report<br \/>\nalthough, PW1 admitted that when he came back from the police control<br \/>\nroom, he came to know from villagers that Bhanwar Singh was<br \/>\nassaulted by them and the first information report was lodged thereafter<br \/>\nwith the police at the place of occurrence itself.  This version of the<br \/>\nprosecution case has seen light of the day after several days of the<br \/>\noccurrence when Saleem (PW 2) and Ramesh Sanwala (PW 5) were<br \/>\nexamined by the police and before that there is absolutely no whisper<br \/>\nabout the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)\tOn the question of snatching of the gun from accused Bhanwar Singh,<br \/>\nPW 2 stated that the gun was snatched by PW 5 but this fact has not<br \/>\nbeen supported by PW 5 as he candidly stated in his evidence that he<br \/>\ndid not snatch the gun from accused Bhanwar Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>(e)\tMangoo Singh (PW 22), the investigating officer stated that upon receipt<br \/>\nof information from the outpost, when he went to the place of occurrence<br \/>\nand arrested accused Bhanwar Singh from his room, he produced the<br \/>\nbroken gun before him and the same was seized.  If prosecution case of<br \/>\nsnatching of gun by the villagers from the accused is true, it is not<br \/>\nunderstandable how the accused was able to produce the same before<br \/>\nthe police.\n<\/p>\n<p>(f)\tHira Ram (PW 13), a police constable stated that in his presence, room<br \/>\nof accused Bhanwar Singh was searched and he found that wooden bed<br \/>\nand almirah were in a broken condition.  Station House officer  Ashok<br \/>\nKumar Trivedi (PW 15) stated that when he inspected the room of<br \/>\naccused Bhanwar Singh, he found tables, wooden bed and telephone in<br \/>\nbroken condition and glass pieces of almirah were found scattered on<br \/>\nthe floor of the room.  Ram Chandra (PW 19) who was Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice attached to the police control room stated that when he inspected<br \/>\nroom of accused Bhanwar Singh, he found the above articles lying<br \/>\nscattered in a broken condition.  He further stated that he found blood<br \/>\nstains on the floor of the said room belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh<br \/>\nwhere articles were lying scattered in a damaged condition.\n<\/p>\n<p>(g)\tPW-22, the investigating officer stated that when he inspected the place<br \/>\nof occurrence, PW1 told him that gun was fired by accused Bhanwar<br \/>\nSingh from point &#8216;B&#8217; shown in the site plan and at that time, Arjun Singh<br \/>\nwas standing at point &#8216;A&#8217;.   According to PW1, distance between Arjun<br \/>\nSingh and Bhanwar Singh was 9&#8242; feet.  According to the evidence of<br \/>\nPW22, distance between point &#8216;A&#8217; and point &#8216;B&#8217; was 25-30 feet.  PW 1<br \/>\nstated that gun was fired by accused Bhanwar Singh by keeping its butt<br \/>\non his shoulder and it was at 90? angle.  The portion of body of Arjun<br \/>\nSingh which has been hit by this gun fire is mid portion of his right thigh<br \/>\nand according to the evidence of Dr. Jagdish (PW 17), the wound was<br \/>\n8.5 c.m. x 8 cm with multiple punctured wound at the margin of the<br \/>\nwound.   Wound of such dimension was possible only if firing is from a<br \/>\ndistance of 3&#8242; to 4&#8242;.\n<\/p>\n<p>(h)\tPW 17- the doctor has stated that direction of the wound may be from<br \/>\ndownward to upward which could be possible only when the gun went<br \/>\noff accidentally because a cartridge was loaded inside the gun and it<br \/>\nwas so loaded that it cannot be taken out and, therefore, when the gun<br \/>\nwas hit on the cemented floor in front of the room of Bhanwar Singh for<br \/>\nbreaking the gun by holding from barrel side, it went off accidentally. In<br \/>\nthe process of breaking the gun, the direction of the wound would also<br \/>\nbe from downwards to upwards which supports the case of accidental<br \/>\nfiring as disclosed by the defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants placed before us<br \/>\noral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to<br \/>\nshow that view taken by the High Court was perverse.  Having given our<br \/>\nanxious considerations, we are of the view that the High Court cannot be said<br \/>\nto be unjustified in doubting veracity of the prosecution case as defence version<br \/>\nis probable one and accordingly impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by it<br \/>\ncannot be said to be perverse in any manner so as to be interfered with by this<br \/>\nCourt more so when in the present case, it cannot be said that only one view is<br \/>\npossible but here is a case where two views are possible.  It is well settled that<br \/>\nin a case where two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of<br \/>\nconviction, the higher court should not interfere with the order of acquittal<br \/>\nimpugned before it.  This being the position, we are of the opinion that the High<br \/>\nCourt has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents of the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, both the appeals fail and the same are accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 Author: B.N.Agrawal Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, B.N.Agrawal. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 508 of 1997 PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan RESPONDENT: Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/05\/2004 BENCH: Y.K.SABHARWAL &amp; B.N.AGRAWAL. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH [&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-173086","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>State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 - 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\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-24T23:10:41+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-24T23:10:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2482,\"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\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-24T23:10:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 - 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\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-24T23:10:41+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004","datePublished":"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-24T23:10:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004"},"wordCount":2482,"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\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-24T23:10:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-bhanwar-singh-others-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh &amp; Others on 6 May, 2004"}]},{"@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\/173086","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=173086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173086\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}