{"id":182512,"date":"2010-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-15T20:52:42","modified_gmt":"2018-03-15T15:22:42","slug":"meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/7\/2003\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 7 of 2003\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To be
\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
MEENA
\n@ SUNGLA @ ANISHA, D\/O KAMALSING GANGARAMSING THAKUR – Appellant(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
STATE
\nOF GUJARAT – Opponent(s)<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
Appearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
THROUGH
\nJAIL for
\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR KR RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1,
\nMR KP RAVAL,
\nAPP for Opponent(s) :\n<\/p>\n
1,
\n=========================================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 25\/06\/2010 <\/p>\n
 J
\nU D G M E N T <\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellant   original accused has filed this Appeal under Section
\n\t374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment and order of conviction
\n\tdated 29.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
\n\tSurat in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2000, whereby the learned
\n\tAdditional Sessions Judge has held the appellant   accused guilty
\n\tfor the offences charged against her.\n<\/p>\n
Brief
\n\tfacts of the prosecution case is that on 8.12.1997 the complainant
\n\tRajeshwari Rameshbhai Desai was travelling from Ahmedabad by
\n\tAhmedabad Janata Express Train No.8. It is alleged that when the
\n\tsaid train stopped at Surat Railway Station at that time she had
\n\trequested the accused to bring the bottle of milk. The accused
\n\tbrought the milk and gave it to the complainant in the glass which
\n\twas with the accused. After consuming the milk the complainant
\n\tstarted feeling giddiness and thereafter she became unconscious. It
\n\tis alleged that on 9.12.1997 at 2.00 O’clock in the afternoon the
\n\tcomplainant regain consciousness and she found herself admitted in
\n\tNagar Hospital at Mumbai. Thereafter her family members were
\n\tinformed. Thereafter, complainant found that her gold bangles, gold
\n\tChain and cash amount of Rs.17,500\/- and clothes lying in the bag
\n\thave been stolen. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint
\n\twith Mumbai Central Railway Police Station. As the offence was
\n\tcommitted within the jurisdiction of Surat Railway Police, the said
\n\tcomplaint was transferred to Surat Railway Police. During the
\n\tinvestigation the police found the accused habitual in committing
\n\tsuch type of offences and, therefore, the Investigating Officer
\n\tarranged for identification parade by the Executive Magistrate.
\n\tDuring the identification parade, the complainant identified the
\n\taccused. During the interrogation, it was found that the accused has
\n\tsold away the stolen articles to one Gold Smith Pushpakar Sakharam
\n\tDugdhikar at Solapur (Maharashtra). The police has seized the said
\n\tarticles in the form of ingot in presence of Panch witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tcompletion of investigation the charge-sheet against the accused
\n\tcame to be submitted before the concerned Court for the offences
\n\tunder Sections 328, 394 of I.P. Code. As the offences were triable
\n\tby the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the
\n\tsaid case to the Court of Sessions at Surat.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tthe charge was framed against the appellant   accused. The
\n\tappellant   accused denied the said charge. The  prosecution has
\n\texamined in all 11 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence,
\n\tand at the end, recorded the statement of accused under Section 313
\n\tof Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that since 18th
\n\tNovember, 1994 she is in the Judicial custody. Thereafter, she was
\n\tin the Judicial custody for the offences registered against her by
\n\tViramgam Railway Police and Valsad Railway Police. At the conclusion
\n\tof the trial, after considering the oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence led by the parties and the arguments advanced, the learned
\n\tAdditional Sessions Judge, vide impugned Judgment and order dated
\n\t29.11.2002, held the accused   appellant guilty of the offence
\n\tunder Section 328 of I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
\n\timprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000\/- i\/d to
\n\tundergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned Judge also
\n\theld the accused guilty for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.
\n\tCode and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
\n\t10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000\/- i\/d to undergo simple
\n\timprisonment for 3 months. The learned Judge ordered that both the
\n\tsentences shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order dated
\n\t29.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat,
\n\tin Sessions Case No. 141 if 2000  the appellant (original accused)
\n\thas preferred this Appeal, through jail. The appellant   accused
\n\thas requested that she is a poor lady and she may be provided the
\n\tAdvocate from the Legal Aid. Therefore, learned Advocate Mr. K.R.
\n\tRaval was appointed to defend the case on behalf of the appellant
\n\taccused.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. K.R. Raval for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
\n\tMr. K.P. Raval on behalf of the respondent State. We have gone
\n\tthrough the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
\n\tSessions Judge and also gone through the oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence produced before us. We have also gone through the papers
\n\tproduced before us.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. K.R. Raval for the appellant   accused has read the
\n\tevidence of Executive Magistrate (P.W.1) (Exh. 11) and contended
\n\tthat the Executive Magistrate has not followed the direction given
\n\tby the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to how to carry out the
\n\tidentification parade. He has contended that the dummies which were
\n\tused by the Executive Magistrate were not similar to the appearance
\n\tof the present appellant   accused. He has contended that the yadi
\n\t(Exh. 13) given by the Police just to arrange the identification
\n\tparade is also not in a proper form. Learned Advocate has also read
\n\tthe Panchnama (Exh.14) of identification parade and contended that
\n\tthe prosecution has failed to prove the test identification parade
\n\twhich is not as per the provisions of law. Learned Advocate has also
\n\tread the evidence of Panch witness Srinivas (P.W.2) (Exh.16) who is
\n\tthe panch of recovery panchnama of gold ingot of 35 grams and
\n\tcontended that the act of the present appellant   accused is not
\n\tproved from the evidence of this witness and also from the panchnama
\n\tExh.17 and simply recovery of gold runny cannot prove the offence as
\n\tper the charge. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval has also read the oral
\n\tevidence of gold smith Padmakar Sakharam Dudhgikar (P.W.3) (Exh.18)
\n\tand contended that just to avoid the harassment from the police he
\n\thas produced the piece of gold (runny) of 35 grams to the
\n\tInvestigating Officer. The said witness was declared hostile.
\n\tLearned Advocate Mr. Raval has also gone through the evidence of Dr.
\n\tParikh (P.W.5) (Exh.21), through whom the treatment was given to the
\n\tvictim   complainant. Learned Advocate has also read the evidence
\n\tof Panch witness  Arvindbhai Laljibhai Zaveri (P.W.6) (Exh.23).
\n\tLearned Advocate Mr. Raval has contended that from the oral as well
\n\tas documentary evidence and also from the evidence of trapping
\n\tofficer the prosecution has failed to establish its case. He has
\n\talso contended that looking to the oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence the order of conviction and sentence may be quashed and set
\n\taside.  Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by  the
\n\tlearned Judge requires to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tA.P.P. Shri K.P. Raval has supported the Judgment and order of the
\n\tlearned Addl. Sessions Judge. He has contended that from the oral as
\n\twell as documentary evidence it is established that the prosecution
\n\thas proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that
\n\tfrom the oral evidence of Executive Magistrate, it is on record that
\n\tthe present appellant   accused was identified by the complainant.
\n\tLearned APP has contended that from the interrogation of present
\n\tappellant   accused it was came to the knowledge of the
\n\tInvestigating Officer that the stolen property of the complainant,
\n\tviz. Gold ornaments were sold to the gold smith and in presence of
\n\tpanchas the muddamal articles, which were changed into ingot was
\n\trecovered and the panchnama is also proved beyond reasonable doubt.
\n\tHe has contended that the evidence of panch witness is also fully
\n\tcorroborated with the panchnama. He has also contended that the
\n\tevidence of Medical Officer and the case diary is also proved beyond
\n\treasonable doubt. Learned APP has contended that from the oral
\n\tevidence of Dr. Parikh (P.W.5) it is on record that from the blood
\n\ttest of the complainant contents of bartriturate was found which is
\n\ta medicine which can make a person unconscious.  He, therefore,
\n\tcontended that the trial Court has not committed any error in
\n\tholding the appellant   accused guilty for the charges levelled
\n\tagainst her and, therefore, no interference is required to be called
\n\tfor and the Appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court. We have
\n\talso perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. We
\n\thave also called for the report from the jail authority. From the
\n\treport it is clearly established that the appellant   accused is
\n\thabitual offender and in all in 11 cases she was found guilty for
\n\tthe offences charged against her. From the remarks column of the
\n\tsaid report, it is found that on 12.2.2004 at 23.00 hours, she had
\n\tabsconded from the Ahmedabad S.T. Bus Stand. The learned Judge has
\n\tclearly observed that from the evidence it is established that
\n\tPanchas have fully supported the recovery panchnama as per Section
\n\t27 of the Evidence Act. Learned Judge has also observed that the
\n\tExecutive Magistrate, who is Public servant, is an independent
\n\twitness and he has no enmity with the present appellant and he has
\n\tno reason to falsely involve the appellant   accused in such a
\n\tserious offence.  Identification parade is also proved.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned trial Judge has rightly not considered the plea of alibi of
\n\tthe accused, in absence of any cogent and convincing material
\n\tbrought on record in the form of jail record, etc.  The prosecution
\n\thas also successfully brought on record that the accused has been
\n\tinvolved in this offence, as there is no material or vital
\n\tcontradictions in the oral as well as documentary evidence led by
\n\tthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
After
\n\tconsidering the oral evidence of Panch and the goldsmith, who had
\n\tpurchased the gold from the accused, though the witnesses have been
\n\tdeclared hostile, from the cross examination the prosecution has
\n\tclearly established its case in the context of evidence led by the
\n\tcomplainant as well as Investigating Officer, as evidence regarding
\n\tdiscovery, pointing out the shop of goldsmith is reliable and
\n\ttrustworthy. The defence side has failed to prove any enmity so as
\n\tto discard the evidence of the witnesses regarding recovery of
\n\tmuddamal gold, nor it is the case that accused has been falsely
\n\tinvolved due to some rivalry or enmity.\n<\/p>\n
Looking
\n\tto the material evidence the Medical Officer has categorically
\n\topined that in the blood test, contents of syrum Bartrichurate is
\n\tfound which is in the form of tablet which is a slipping pill and
\n\tbecause of that complainant went in to deep sleep. It is also
\n\tpertinent to note that the complainant, at the very first point of
\n\ttime, said about consumption of milk given by the accused and
\n\tthereafter she became  unconscious, which is supported by the
\n\tmedical evidence. Further the complainant has identified the accused
\n\tin identification parade and also in the Court. The conduction of
\n\tidentification parade is also proved. The same is also supported by
\n\tthe Executive Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tfar as involvement of accused is concerned, from the oral evidence,
\n\tit is proved on record by the prosecution that complainant during
\n\tnight hours inquired for milk and accused brought the milk and after
\n\tdrinking the said milk, she became unconscious and when she regained
\n\tconsciousness she found that her valuable articles are stolen.
\n\tFurther, looking to the cases registered against the accused and in
\n\tview of the fact that her plea of alibi is totally found
\n\tunbelievable and untrustworthy coupled with the fact that her
\n\tpresence in the train and her identity is established by the
\n\tprosecution without any shadow of doubt, in our view, the learned
\n\ttrial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and
\n\thence no interference is called for by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe oral as well as documentary evidence, in our view, the learned
\n\ttrial Judge has not committed any error in holding the appellant
\n\taccused guilty for the offences charged against her.  Hence, the
\n\tprosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
\n\tand we have no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid, it appears that while dismissing the appeal
\n\ton the ground that the accused   appellant is reported absconding,
\n\tappropriate direction also deserve to be issued not only for the
\n\tproper enforcement of the rule of law, but also to ensure that there
\n\tis sincere effort by the police in this regard and the report
\n\tthereof is made to the officer of the Court who may be assigned with
\n\tsuch work.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tthe following order :\n<\/p>\n
Appeal
\n\tis dismissed with the aforesaid direction accordingly. The Judgment
\n\tand order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
\n\tJudge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2000, holding the
\n\tappellant   accused guilty for the offence charged against her,
\n\tis hereby confirmed. It is reported that the appellant   accused
\n\tis absconding and, therefore, following direction is issued :\n<\/p>\n
Non-bailable
\n\twarrant shall be issued against the appellant   convict who is
\n\treported absconding, so as to bring her to the custody\/jail. The
\n\tDirector General of Police shall assign the work of enforcement of
\n\tthe warrant to the concerned Police Officer not below the rank of
\n\tP.I. for tracing the accused and to put her to the custody.\n<\/p>\n
If
\nthe appellant   convict is not found in spite of the effort by the
\npolice, her property shall be attached and the appropriate action
\nshall be taken for attachment and disposal of the property as per the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tofficer who may be marked by the Director General of Police will
\n\talso undertake the aforesaid action for attachment and for disposal
\n\tof the property in accordance with law;\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tReport shall be submitted for compliance to the aforesaid direction
\n\tby the Director General of Police to this Court within a period of
\n\tsix months from today and such report shall be placed before the
\n\tRegistrar (Judicial) of this Court. If the Registrar (Judicial) is
\n\tof the view that the proper action is not taken, he will place the
\n\tmatter before the Court,  for appropriate orders, <\/p>\n
 \tRecord
\n& Proceedings be sent to the trial Court immediately.\n<\/p>\n
(JAYANT
\nPATEL,J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.\n<\/p>\n
K. SAIYED,  J.)<\/p>\n
sas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/7\/2003 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-182512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeena vs State on 25 June, 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\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-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=\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-15T15:22:42+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\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T15:22:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2441,\"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\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T15:22:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meena vs State on 25 June, 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":"Meena vs State on 25 June, 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\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-15T15:22:42+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\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T15:22:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010"},"wordCount":2441,"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\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010","name":"Meena vs State on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T15:22:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meena-vs-state-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meena vs State on 25 June, 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\/182512","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=182512"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182512\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}