{"id":178469,"date":"2010-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-03T01:54:05","modified_gmt":"2019-02-02T20:24:05","slug":"state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/457\/2010\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 457 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 104 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 104 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
STATE
\nOF GUJARAT – Applicant(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
PARTHIBHAI
\nSHAMALBHAI PATEL & 3 – Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
Appearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nLB DABHI, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
\nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 –\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n=========================================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 15\/07\/2010 <\/p>\n
ORAL
\nCOMMON ORDER  :\n<\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
By
\n\tmeans of filing this Application under Section 378 (1)(3) of the
\n\tCode of Criminal Procedure ( the Cr.PC  for short), the
\n\tApplicant   State of Gujarat has prayed to grant leave to file
\n\tCriminal Appeal No. 104 of 2010, which is directed against the
\n\tjudgment and order dated 25\/9\/2009 rendered in Special [Atrocity]
\n\tCase No. 67 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at
\n\tPalanpur, whereby the Respondents   accused ( the accused  for
\n\tshort) came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under
\n\tSections 324 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ( the
\n\tCode for short ) and Section 3(1)(X) of the Schedule Castes and
\n\tScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 ( the
\n\tAtrocity Act  for short) as well as under section 135 of the
\n\tBombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tprosecution case, in nutshell, is   that the complainant
\n\tNathubhai Somabhai Chauhan lodged FIR against the respondents
\n\taccused before the PSI, Vadgam Police Station disclosing that on
\n\t14\/1\/2009 at about 8.00 hours in the morning, while the complainant
\n\talong with his daughters Kaliben and Gitaben, was doing agricultural
\n\twork in a field, respondent no. 1 [original accused no. 1]
\n\tParthibhai Shamalbhai Patel came with Dhariya and used filthy
\n\tlanguage and insulted him in his caste’s name and threatened the
\n\tcomplainant that he had some dispute with the original owner of the
\n\tfield, yet why the complainant along with his family members was
\n\tdoing the agricultural work in the field.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further the prosecution case that at the time of the incident,
\n\tthe respondent no. 1   Parthibhai Shamalbhai attempted to inflict
\n\tblow with Dhariya on complainant Nathubhai, but at that time
\n\toriginal owner of the field intervened and original owner of the
\n\tfield named Gitaben received injury on forehead. It is further the
\n\tprosecution case that hearing the shouting, the remaining accused,
\n\tnamely respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 came there and they started to
\n\tgive kick and fist blows to daughter of the complainant named
\n\tKaliben. It is further the prosecution case that all the respondents
\n\t  accused insulted the complainant and his daughters by their
\n\tcaste’s name and abused them.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcomplaint for the aforesaid incident was registered and PSI Vadgam
\n\tPolice Station commenced investigation. During the course of
\n\tinvestigation  statements of material witnesses were recorded.
\n\tRequired panchnamas were drawn in presence of panchas and Muddamal
\n\tweapon Dhariya came to be seized. After collecting required material
\n\tfor the purpose of lodgement of the charge-sheet, charge-sheet came
\n\tto be filed in the Court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n\tBanaskantha at Palanpur. Since the offence punishable under section
\n\t3 [1][10] of the Atrocity Act is exclusively triable by the Special
\n\tCourt, the Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court,
\n\tBanaskantha at Palanpur, which was numbered as Special [Atrocity]
\n\tCase No. 67\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tLd. Special Judge framed charge against all the respondents
\n\taccused, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
\n\tThe prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 13 documents as
\n\tdetailed in para 6 of the impugned judgment. After the prosecution
\n\tconcluded its oral evidence, Ld. Special Judge recorded further
\n\tstatements of the respondents   accused under section 313
\n\tof the Cr. PC and they denied all the incriminating circumstances
\n\tput to them by the Ld. Special Judge and stated that on account of
\n\tdispute regarding land, they were falsely implicated in this case.
\n\tAfter appreciating the evidence on record and the statements made on
\n\tbehalf of both the sides, the Ld. Special Judge, by virtue of the
\n\timpugned judgment and order recorded conviction of the respondents
\n\taccused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and
\n\t506[2] of the Code and for each of the offences, SI for 3 months and
\n\tfine of Rs.500\/- each and in default of payment of fine, SI for 8
\n\tdays was awarded to each of the respondents   accused. However,
\n\tthey were released on probation for the period of 3 years as
\n\tprovided under section 360 of the Code. The Ld. Special Judge
\n\trecorded acquittal of all the respondents   accused for the
\n\toffence punishable under section 324 read with sec. 114 of the Code
\n\tand section 3 [1] [10] of the Atrocity Act and section 135 of the
\n\tBombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have
\n\tconsidered the submissions advanced by Mr. R.C. Kodekar, Ld. APP for
\n\tthe applicant   State and we have perused the impugned judgment
\n\tand order and the set of evidence supplied by him during the course
\n\tof his submissions. We have also perused record and proceedings of
\n\tSpecial [Atrocity] Case No. 67\/2009, which was called for vide order
\n\tdated 1\/7\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
Perusing
\n\tthe record and proceedings, it clearly transpires that the entire
\n\tprosecution case centres round the evidence of the complainant PW  2
\n\tNathubhai Sonabhai examined at exh. 16, PW 3 Gitaben Rajput examined
\n\tat exh. 18, PW 4 Bhavarsinh Veniram examined at exh. 19 and PW 7
\n\tKaliben Nathabhai examined at exh. 28. We have re-examined,
\n\tre-appreciated and re-scrutinized their testimonies and we are of
\n\tthe considered opinion that the Ld. Special Judge rightly came to
\n\tthe conclusion that their testimonies regarding the offence
\n\tpunishable under section 3 [1][10] of the Atrocity Act are shaky. We
\n\tare in complete agreement with the observations made by the Ld.
\n\tSpecial Judge that there are
\n\tmaterial inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence. So
\n\tfar as the acquittal in connection with offence punishable under
\n\tsection 324 of the Code is concerned, though the witnesses alleged
\n\tthat Dhariya was used to cause injury, evidence reveals that reverse
\n\tpart of the Dhariya was inflicted for causing the injury. It further
\n\ttranspires that the evidence clearly reveals that there was dispute
\n\tregarding the land between the respondents   accused, who are
\n\tmembers of the same family and original owner of the land, namely PW
\n\t3 Gitaben Kesarsinh Rajput.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\toverall  view of the matter, according to us, the prosecution has
\n\tnot been able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused
\n\tfor the offences for which the respondents   accused came to be
\n\tacquitted.   The complicity of the accused for commission of these
\n\toffences  is not established and there is no evidence against the
\n\taccused to connect them with the alleged crime.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of
\n\tthe unsatisfactory evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the
\n\tconsidered opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been
\n\tcommitted by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of these
\n\toffences.  We find ourselves in complete agreement with the ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal, as, in our view, no
\n\tother conclusion was possible except the one reached by the trial
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tis an acquittal appeal. The principles which would govern and
\n\tregulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of
\n\tacquittal passed by the Trial Court have been very succinctly
\n\texplained by the Supreme Court in the matter of  AJIT SAVANT
\n\tMAJAGAVI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in AIR 1997
\n\tp.3255.\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\n\tIn an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses
\n\tall the powers, and nothing less than the powers it possesses while
\n\thearing an appeal against an order of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\tThe High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue,
\n\treappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings
\n\tin place of the findings recorded by trial court, if the said
\n\tfindings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in
\n\tother words, perverse.\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\tBefore reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to
\n\tconsider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and
\n\tto record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds not
\n\tsubscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the
\n\taccused is entitled to acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\n\tIn reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in
\n\tview the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available
\n\tin favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and
\n\tstrengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the
\n\ttrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\n\tIf the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraised of the
\n\tevidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there
\n\tis another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which
\n\tfavours the accused should be adopted.\n<\/p>\n
(f)
\n\tThe High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the
\n\tadvantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing
\n\ttheir conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box.\n<\/p>\n
(g)
\n\tThe High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the
\n\taccused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such
\n\tas a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain
\n\tas to the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\t ANOKH SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB,<\/a> reported in AIR 1992
\n\tSC p.598, Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against
\n\tacquittal, the High Court should attach greater weight to
\n\tappreciation of evidence by the Trial Judge who had the occasion to
\n\twatch the demeanour of the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an
\n\tacquittal appeal if  other view is  possible then also appellate
\n\tCourt cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into
\n\t conviction, unless  the  findings  of  the trial Court are
\n\tperverse,  contrary to  the  material on  record, palpably  wrong,
\n\tmanifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.  (See    Ramesh
\n\tBabulal Doshi  V. State of Gujarat<\/a> (1996) 9 SCC 225).  In the
\n\tinstant case, the learned APP has not been able  to  point out to us
\n\tas to how the findings recorded  by the trial Court are  perverse,
\n\tcontrary  to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly
\n\terroneous  or demonstrably unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\toverall appreciation of evidence,  this Court is  satisfied  that
\n\tthere is no infirmity in the reasons assigned  by  the trial Court
\n\tfor acquitting the accused.  Suffice it to say that the trial Court
\n\thas given cogent and convincing  reasons  for  acquitting the
\n\taccused and the learned A.P.P. has  failed to dislodge the reasons
\n\tgiven by the trial Court and  convince  this  Court  to take  a
\n\tview contrary to the one taken by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Seen
\n\t in  the  above  context, we do not find any valid reason or
\n\tjustifiable ground to interfere with the impugned  judgment
\n\tand order acquitting the accused of the offences with  which  they
\n\twere charged.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the application fails and accordingly it is
\n\trejected.  Resultantly, leave to appeal is refused, and as a
\n\tconsequence thereof, Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2010 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.\n<\/p>\n
Kapadia, J.)<\/p>\n
(
\nJ.C. Upadhyaya, J.)<\/p>\n
*
\n Pansala.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/457\/2010 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 457 of 2010 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 104 of 2010 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 104 of 2010 ========================================================= STATE […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 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\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-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=\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-02T20:24:05+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=\"9 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-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T20:24:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1787,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T20:24:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 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":"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 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\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-02T20:24:05+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T20:24:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010"},"wordCount":1787,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010","name":"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T20:24:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-parthibhai-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Parthibhai on 15 July, 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\/178469","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=178469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178469\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}