{"id":184992,"date":"2008-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-10T07:28:14","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T01:58:14","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: G Singhvi<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Mathur, G.S. Singhvi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1133 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Rajasthan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJaggu Ram\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
G.S. Singhvi, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated
\n27.10.1999 of the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court
\nwhereby he allowed the appeal preferred by respondent  Jaggu
\nRam and acquitted him of the charge under Section 304-B and
\n201 Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
      The facts necessary for deciding the appeal are as under:
\n\tOn 30th March, 1993 one Suresh Khateek informed Atma Ram
\n(PW-1) that his daughter Shanti @ Gokul had died at her in-laws
\nplace.  Upon this Atma Ram lodged First Information Report at
\nPolice Station Srimadhopur stating therein that his daughter
\nShanti @ Gokul was married to Jeevan Ram, son of Jagdish Balai
\n(Jaggu Ram), resident of Nathusar about eighteen months ago;
\nthat he gave dowry according to his capacity; that immediately
\nafter the marriage, Jaggu Ram, his son Jeevan Ram and wife
\nNathi started harassing Shanti in connection with dowry; that
\nafter three days of marriage they left  Radio, Press etc. and
\ndemanded watch and jewellery;  that they with a view to save his
\ndaughter from harassment, he gave silver ornaments viz. Paizeb
\n(anklet), Tagadi, Locket and Ear-rings apart from cash of  Rs.
\n10,000\/- to her in-laws, but this did not satisfy them and after
\nthree months, they again started harassing her and left her at
\nvillage Abhawas, where she stayed at his house for 8 months;
\nthat a meeting was held at village Abhawas which was attended
\nby 22-25 people including Jaggu Ram (the respondent herein),
\nRameshwar Mali, Chhitar Kheteek and Bhagega Balai of village
\nNathusar.  In that meeting Jaggu Ram assured that he will keep
\nGokul without creating any problem; that thereafter he went to
\nNathusar six to seven times to bring her daughter to Abhawas but
\nher husband and in-laws did not send her and demanded colour
\ntelevision.  They also threatened that if additional dowry is not
\nbrought, then his daughter will be finished. He told the villagers
\nabout the demand made by Jaggu Ram and his family and the
\nthreat given by them.  Upon this, the villagers sent a message to
\nJaggu Ram that it was not proper.   Jaggu Ram and his family
\nmembers got annoyed by this development and they killed his
\ndaughter by burning with kerosene and cremated her body at 5.00
\na.m. on 30.3.1993.  Thereupon, the police registered Criminal
\nCase No.48\/93 under Sections 498A, 304-B and 201 of the IPC.
\nDuring the investigation, the police recorded the statements of
\nAtma Ram and other persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C., collected
\nthe hospital record and arrested the appellant, his wife Nathi and
\nson Jeevan Ram.  A lathi was recovered at the instance of Jeevan
\nRam.  After completing the investigating, the police filed challan
\nagainst all the accused in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate, Shrimadhopur, who committed them to the Sessions
\nCourt for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The prosecution examined PW-1 Atmaram, PW-2 Kaluram,
\nPW-3 Babulal, PW-4 Doctor Vijay Kumar, PW-5 Kamal Surana,
\nPW-6 Shankar Lal, PW-7 Kanaram, PW-8 Gopiram, PW-9
\nMewaram,      PW-10 Rameshwar, PW-11 Banwari Lal, PW-12 Ram
\nKishore,       PW-13 Chhitar, PW-14 Maliram, PW-15 Saidduram,
\nPW-16 Suresh, PW-17 Shrawan Singh, PW-18 Jamal, PW-19
\nRamdhan, PW-20 Doctor Shyam Lal Khuteta and PW-21 Om
\nPrakash Godara and also produced documents marked Exhibit P1-
\nIndoor Ticket deceased Gokul, Exhibit P3A to P5A  Recovered
\nblood stained clothes, Exhibit P6-Recovered bones and ash and
\nExhibit P7- Original report, PW 8- First Information Report, Exhibit
\nP9-Statement of Rameshwar given to the Police, Exhibit P10- Site
\nmap of the spot, Exhibit P11-Statement of Chhitar given to the
\nPolice, Exhibit P12- Recovered Lathi, Exhibit P13-Recovery site
\nmap, Exhibit P14-Staement of Suresh given to the Police, Exhibit
\nP15-Receipt of FSL, Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P17-Statement of
\nJamal to the Police, Exhibit P18-Photo copy of Register of Store,
\nExhibit P19-Injury report of Gokul Devi, Exhibit P20-Arrest
\nJeevanram, Exhibit P21-Arrest Jagguram, Exhibit P22- Arrest
\nNathi Devi and Exhibit P24-Information.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  In his
\nstatement, Jeevan Ram gave out that he had gone out of village
\non 29.3.1993 to appear in an examination and that he had been
\nfalsely implicated.  He denied the allegation of demand of dowry.
\nHe gave out that the deceased was suffering from fits and she
\ndied due to injuries caused when she collided with the door
\n(chaukhat) of the house.  The other accused  denied the charges
\nlevelled against them.  The defence produced the documents
\nmarked Exhibit D1-Statement of Shankar Lal given to the Police,
\nExhibit D2-Statement of Gopiram given to the Police, Exhibit D3-
\nStatement of Mevaram given to the Police, Exhibit D4-Statement
\nof Atmaram given to the Police, Exhibit D5-Statement of Ram
\nKishore to the Police, Exhibit D6-Programme of examination of
\nSecondary School, Exhibit D7-Admission Certificate for the
\nexamination, Exhibit  D8 and Exhibit D9-Entrance Card of
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana
\n(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Judge), framed the following
\npoints for determination:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tWhether Shrimati Gokul died due to the injuries on
\nher body?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether Shrimati Gokul died within 7 years of her
\nmarriage?\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWhether Shrimati Gokul was subjected to cruelty
\nand harassment by her husband, mother-in-law and
\nfather-in-law immediately after the marriage and till her
\ndeath in connection with the demand of dowry?\n<\/p>\n
4.\tWhether the accused destroyed the evidence
\nrelating to the death of Shrimati Gokul by cremating her
\nwithout informing her family members and the police
\nand without getting the postmortem conducted?\n<\/p>\n
         The learned Trial Judge  analysed the facts, evaluated the
\nprosecution and defence evidence and concluded that the
\nprosecution has  succeeded in proving the charge of demand of
\ndowry by the accused and that they were guilty of torturing and
\ntreating her with cruelty immediately after marriage till her death.
\nThe learned Trial Judge further held that Shanti @ Gokul died due
\nto head injuries within seven years of her marriage.   He then held
\nthat the defence has failed to explain the cause of death of Shanti
\n@ Gokul. He rejected the defence theory that the deceased was
\nsuffering from epilepsy and she died due to injuries suffered
\nbecause during the bout of fits, her head collided against the door
\nof the house. Accordingly, he convicted the respondent and his wife
\nShrimati Nathi under Section 304-B and sentenced them to seven
\nyears rigorous imprisonment.   He also convicted them under
\nSection 498A and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment
\nand imposed a fine of Rs.500\/- with a direction that if they fail to
\ndeposit the amount of fine, the accused shall undergo further
\nimprisonment of three months.  The respondent and his wife were
\nalso convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to one year
\nrigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500\/- and in default to
\nundergo simple imprisonment of three months.  The learned Trial
\nJudge directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.  He,
\nhowever, accepted the defence version that Jeevan Ram was not in
\nthe village at the time of death of Shanti and acquitted him.\n<\/p>\n
\t   On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
\nconfirmed the finding that the respondent and his wife Nathi were
\nguilty of demanding dowry but acquitted them  of the charge under
\nSection 304-B IPC on the premise that Jeevan Ram had been
\nacquitted and the State had not preferred appeal against his
\nacquittal.  However, he upheld their conviction under Section 498A
\nand confirmed the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment
\nwith fine of 500\/- and to undergo further imprisonment of three
\nmonths in the case of default.\n<\/p>\n
\t  We have heard Shri Naveen Kumar Singh, learned advocate
\nappearing for the appellant-State of Rajasthan and scrutinized the
\nentire record.\n<\/p>\n
      At the outset we consider it proper to mention that with a view
\nto curb the growing menace of dowry deaths, the Parliament
\namended the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act and inserted
\nSection 304-B and 113-B respectively in the two statutes.  This was
\ndone keeping in view the recommendations made by the Law
\nCommission of India  in its 21st Report.  Section 304-B (1) IPC lays
\ndown that where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily
\ninjury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
\nseven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her
\ndeath she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
\nor any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
\ndemand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death, and
\nsuch husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her
\ndeath.  Explanation appearing below sub-section (1) of Section
\n304-B declares that for the purpose of this sub-section, dowry
\nshall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
\nProhibition Act, 1961.  Sub-section (2) of Section 304-B prescribes
\nthe minimum punishment for dowry death as seven years which
\ncan be extended up to imprisonment for life.  The ingredients
\nnecessary for the application of Section 304-B IPC are :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tthat the death of a woman has been caused by
\nburns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
\nnormal circumstances,\n<\/p>\n
2.\tthat such death has been caused or has occurred
\nwithin seven years of her marriage and,\n<\/p>\n
3.\tthat soon before her death the woman was
\nsubjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
\nany relative of her husband in connection with any
\ndemand for dowry.\n<\/p>\n
      Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon
\nbefore her death a woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment
\nfor, or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person who
\nis accused of causing her death then the court shall presume that
\nsuch person has caused the dowry death. The presumption under
\nSection 113-B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution
\nestablishes the essentials ingredients mentioned therein it becomes
\nthe duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused
\ncaused the dowry death.\n<\/p>\n
         A conjoint reading of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B
\nEvidence Act shows that in order to prove the charge of dowry
\ndeath, prosecution has to establish that the victim died within 7
\nyears of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
\nsoon before her death and such cruelty or harassment was for
\ndowry.  The expression soon before her death has not been
\ndefined in either of the statutes.  Therefore, in each case the court
\nhas to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of
\nthe victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection
\nbetween the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment
\nand the death  State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr.<\/a> [2004
\n(4) SCC 470], Arun Garg v. State of Punjab & Anr.<\/a> [2004 (8)
\nSCC 251], Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> [2004
\n(9) SCC 157], Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of
\nBihar<\/a> [2005 (2) SCC 388], Ram Badan Sharma v. State of
\nBihar [2006 (10) SCC 115].\n<\/p>\n
       In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the
\nprosecution succeeded in establishing the existence of the
\ningredients of Section 304-B IPC and the High Court committed an
\nerror by acquitting the respondent only on the ground that Jeevan
\nRam had been acquitted by the trial court and the State did not
\nappeal against his acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
          In order to prove that  Shanti @ Gokul died as a result of
\ninjuries inflicted on her body, the prosecution examined PW-1 Atma
\nRam who largely reiterated the story set out in the first information
\nreport.  He also explained  the apparent discrepancy in the First
\nInformation Report and medical report regarding the cause of the
\ndeath  by stating that he mentioned about the burning of his
\ndaughter because she had earlier told about such threat held out by
\nher in-laws,  but on reaching the spot, he came to know that she
\ndied due to injuries  on her head.  In cross-examination he gave
\ndetails of dowry items.  He categorically denied that his daughter
\nwas mentally ill and that he and the accused had taken her out to
\nDr. Shiv Gautam, a Psychiatrist at Jaipur.  He also denied that he
\nhad kept the daughter with him for her treatment or that the story
\nof Panchayat was fabricated. The prosecution also examined PW-6
\nShankar Lal PW-7 Kana Ram and PW -12 Ram Kishore, who
\nsupported the statement of Atma Ram.  In their corss-examination
\neach of these witnesses denied the suggestion that the deceased
\nwas suffering from epilepsy and she used to get fits.  PW-4 Dr.
\nVijay Kumar gave out that Gokul Devi was admitted in the hospital
\nwith head injuries.  He was told by the relatives of the injured that
\nthe injuries were caused due to fall.  They also told that she was an
\nold patient of epilepsy.  According to Dr. Vijay Kumar, Shanti
\nremained in the hospital till 4 o clock and in the evening her
\nrelatives took her by saying that they will be going to Jaipur.  PW-
\n20 Dr. Shayam Lal Khuteta supported the version of Dr. Vijay
\nKumar that Shrimati Shanti had two injuries on her head.  He gave
\nout that first injury  3 =  x = was a bone deep crushed wound
\non the right side of the temple and the second  was punctured
\nwound of  = cm. deep in the bone from which the fresh blood was
\noozing.  According to Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta  injury No. 1 was
\ninflicted by heavy weapon and injury no. 2 was inflicted by blunt
\nweapon.  The learned Trial Judge relied on the statements of these
\nwitnesses in conjunction with the medical reports and concluded
\nthat Shanti @ Gokul died as a result of the injuries sustained by her
\non her head.  He then considered the defence plea that Gokul was
\nsuffering from epilepsy and she sustained head injuries by colliding
\nwith the frame of the door during the bout of fits.  This plea of the
\ndefence was based on the statement of Jeevan Ram that he used to <\/p>\n
take Shanti to the doctors for treatment and on one occasion he
\nhad taken her to Dr. Shiv Gautam, a mental doctor at Jaipur as also
\nthe statements of PW-10 Rameshwar Mali, PW-13 Chittar, PW-14
\nMaliram, PW-16 Suresh, who were declared hostile, that Gokul was
\nsuffering from Epilepsy.  In their cross-examination, these
\nwitnesses generally stated that Shanti @ Gokul suffered from fits
\nand Jeevan Ram used to take her to Jaipur for treatment.  In his
\ncross-examination,  PW20- Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta also stated that
\nlong time ago, the deceased had come to him for her treatment of
\nEpilepsy.  The learned Trial Judge observed that the story of Gokul
\nsuffering from Epilepsy and her having suffered injuries on the head
\ndue to fall and consequential striking against the door frame was
\nconcocted and was not acceptable  because no evidence was
\nproduced regarding her treatment for Epilepsy and held that in the
\nabsence of any cogent explanation, it was reasonable to infer that
\nthe injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by her in-
\nlaws.  In this regard the learned trial judge also referred to the
\nfactum of recovery of lathi at the instance of Jeevan Ram.\n<\/p>\n
         The High Court overturned this finding by observing that the
\nprosecution has failed to prove the allegation that the deceased was
\nburnt to death.  The learned Single Judge took note of the so-called
\ndiscrepancy in the First Information Report and the statement of
\nPW1-Atma Ram and held that injuries on the head of Gokul were
\ncaused due to her having collided with door frame during bout of
\nfits.  For this purpose, he relied on the statements of PW10-
\nRameshwar , PW13-Chhiter, PW16-Suresh and PW20-Dr. Shyam Lal
\nKhuteta.  The learned Single Judge also opined that in view of the
\nacquittal of Jeevan Ram, the other accused cannot be convicted for
\noffence under Section 304B IPC.\n<\/p>\n
         On the third point framed by him, the learned Trial Judge
\nrelied on the testimony of PW-1 Atma Ram (father of the
\ndeceased), PW-6 Shankar Lal and PW-12 Ram Kishore (brothers of
\nthe deceased), PW-5 Kamal Surana, who was in-charge of Mahila
\nJagran, Shrimadhopur, PW-7 Kanaram, PW-8 Gopiram and PW-9
\nMewaram who had participated in the Panchayat and held that the
\ndetailed narration given by the father and the brothers of the
\ndeceased about cruel treatment and harassment meted out to the
\nGokul was amply supported by the contents of First Information
\nReport, the Panchayat held at village Abhawas to discuss the issue
\nrelating to dowry and the statement of PW-5 Kamal Surana in
\nwhose presence the dowry case of Gokul @ Shanti, daughter of
\nAtma Ram, was discussed.  The learned Trial Judge held that the
\nevidence produced by the prosecution was sufficient to show that
\nGokul was subjected to harassment and torture and was being
\ntreated with cruelty immediately after the marriage till her death
\nbecause she did not bring sufficient dowry.  The High Court
\nreversed this finding only on the premise that  the Panchayat was
\nconvened two and half months before the death of Gokul and
\nnothing had been brought on record to prove that during that
\nperiod she was subjected to cruel treatment.  The learned Single
\nJudge heavily relied on some discrepancies and omissions in the FIR
\nand held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that
\nShanti @ Gokul was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before
\nher death.\n<\/p>\n
            On point no. 4, the learned Trial Judge relied on the
\nstatements of PW-1 Atma Ram, PW-6 Shankar Lal, PW-7 Kanaram,
\nPW-8 Gopiram, PW-9 Mewaram, PW-12 Ram Kishore, all of whom
\nstated that Shrimati Gokul was cremated before they reached
\nNathusar.  The learned Trial Judge noted that the defence has not
\nproduced any evidence to show that the in-laws of the deceased
\nhad informed the police about the death or that the postmortem
\nwas got conducted.  They also did not inform the parents of the
\ndeceased.  In the opinion of the Trial Judge, all this was sufficient to
\nprove the charge of destroying evidence.  Learned Single Judge of
\nthe High Court did not at all discuss this issue.\n<\/p>\n
          In our considered view, the High Court committed serious
\nillegality by acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sections
\n304-B and 201, IPC on the premise that Jeevan Ram had been
\nacquitted.  It is true that the learned trial judge accepted the
\ndefence version that Jeevan Ram was not present in the village
\nNathusar  at the time when Shanti @ Gokul suffered injuries on her
\nheard and acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and the State did not
\nchallenge the same by filing appeal but that by itself did not justify
\na conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge
\nunder Sections 304-B & 201 IPC against the remaining accused.\n<\/p>\n
        A critical analysis of the facts and evidence brought on record
\nshows that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Shanti @
\nGokul died within one and a half years of her marriage.  In their
\nstatements, PW1-Atma Ram, PW6-ShankarLal and PW12-Ram
\nKishore (father and brothers of the deceased) categorically stated
\nthat the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her
\nhusband-Jeevan Ram, father-in-law-Jaggu Ram, mother-in-law,
\nNathi Devi, immediately after marriage on the ground that she did
\nnot bring sufficient dowry.   When the deceased visited her parents
\nhouse, she made a complaint about the harassment.  Thereupon,
\nAtma Ram gave Silver jewellery and Rupees ten thousand cash.
\nEven this also did not satisfy the accused who continued to harass
\nher.  After sometime, the deceased was left at her fathers place.
\nShe stayed there for eight months.  About two and a half months
\nbefore the death, a meeting was convened in the village, which was
\nattended by 20-25 persons, including PW1-Atma Ram, PW6-
\nShankar Lal, PW12-Ram Kishore,  PW7-Kana Ram, PW8-Gopi Ram,
\nPW9-Mewaram(ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat), Jaggu Ram and
\nfour others of village Nathusar also attended the Panchayat.  PW7-
\nKana Ram, PW8-Gopi Ram, PW9-Mewa Ram were independent
\nwitnesses.  They confirmed that a meeting was held in village
\nAbhawas to discuss the issue of dowry and reiterated what PW1-
\nAtma Ram had told them about the demand of dowry.  They were
\ncross-examined at length but the defence could not shake their
\ntestimony.  Rather,   they reiterated the factum of holding the
\nmeeting of Panchayat at Amawas wherein the issue of dowry was
\ngenerally discussed.    PW5-Kamal Surana, In-charge, Women
\nDevelopment Agency, Data Ramgarh, is also an independent
\nwitness.  She gave details of the discussion made in the meeting
\nheld on 11.8.1992 where the case of dowry of Shanti @ Gokul,
\ndaughter of Atma Ram was considered.  According to Kamal
\nSurana, Shanti was very scared and was not able to say anything
\nbut her father gave the details of harassment.  PW5 also stated that
\nshe had gone to the in-laws whereupon, the respondent is said to
\nhave objected to her intervention.  She also produced a diary
\nmaintained by her in which the factum of her meeting at Amawas
\nand Nathusar were recorded.\n<\/p>\n
       If the prosecution evidence is considered in the backdrop of
\nthe fact that the defence failed to produce any evidence to
\ncontrovert the facts relating to the demand of dowry, it must be
\nheld that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in
\nconnection with dowry immediately after her marriage and such
\nharassment continued till her death and the learned trial judge
\nrightly held the charge under Section 304-B IPC as proved, against
\nthe accused.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court gave
\nundue weightage to the minor discrepancies in the first information
\nreport and the statement of PW 1 Atma Ram and some alleged
\nomission in the first information report and acquitted the accused
\nignoring the most important factor that the deceased suffered
\ninjuries in a dwelling unit belonging to her in-laws and in their
\npresence, that she died due to those injuries and that the defence
\nfailed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the injuries on the
\nhead of the deceased.  The defence did introduce the story of the
\ndeceased suffering with epilepsy and her being treated for the
\nsame, but no documentary evidence was produced to show that she
\nwas ever treated for epilepsy.  In their cross-examination, the
\nfather and brothers of the deceased and the other prosecution
\nwitnesses categorically denied that the deceased was suffering from
\nepilepsy and she used to have bouts of fits.  Atma Ram also denied
\nthe suggestion that she and the accused had taken Shanti @ Gokul
\nfor treatment to a Psychiatrist at Jaipur.  Some of the Prosecution
\nwitnesses who were declared hostile, did try to support the theory
\nthat the deceased used to have fits, but their statements can be of
\nno help to the accused because no documentary evidence in the
\nform of prescriptions of doctors or the bills of the treatment and
\npurchase of medicines were produced to prove that the deceased
\nwas suffering from epilepsy and used to have fits.  The statement of
\nDr. Shyam Lal Khuteta is also of no help to the accused because he
\ntoo did not produce record relating to the treatment allegedly given
\nto the deceased for epilepsy long time ago.  The conduct of the
\naccused and his family members in not informing the parents of the
\ndeceased about the injuries caused on her head and consequential
\ndeath and the fact that the cremation of the dead body was
\nconducted in the wee hours of 30.3.1993 without informing the
\nparents or giving an intimation to the Police so as to enable it to get
\nthe post-mortem of the dead body conducted go a long way to
\nshow that the accused had deliberately concocted the story that
\nShanti @ Gokul was suffering from epilepsy and she suffered
\ninjuries on her head by colliding against the door bar during the
\nbout of fits.  The disposal of dead body in a hush-hush manner
\nclearly establish  that the accused had done so with the sole object
\nof concealing the real cause of the death of Shanti @ Gokul.
\n\tIn our considered view, this was a fit case for invoking
\nSection 106 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that when any
\nfact is especially within the knowledge of the any person, the
\nburden of proving that fact is upon him.  In Ram Gulam
\nChaudhary vs. State of Bihar [2001 (8) SCC 311] this Court
\nconsidered the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in a
\ncase somewhat similar to the present one.  This Court noted that
\nthe accused after brutally assaulting a boy carried him away and
\nthereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The
\naccused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after
\nthey took away the boy. It was held that for the absence of any
\nexplanation from the side of the accused about the boy, there was
\nevery justification for drawing an inference that they had murdered
\nthe boy. It was further observed that even though Section 106 of
\nthe Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of
\nits burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
\ndoubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where
\nthe prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a
\nreasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by
\nvirtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which
\nmight lead the court to draw a different inference.\n<\/p>\n
         In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> [2006
\n(1) SCC 681], a two judge-bench of which one of us (G.P.Mathur,J.)
\nwas a member, considered the applicability of Section 106 of the
\nEvidence Act and observed:\n<\/p>\n
The demand for dowry or money from the parents
\nof the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the
\nlast few years. Cases are frequently coming before
\nthe courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone
\nto the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not
\nmet. These crimes are generally committed in
\ncomplete secrecy inside the house and it becomes
\nvery difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No
\nmember of the family, even if he is a witness of the
\ncrime, would come forward to depose against
\nanother family member. The neighbours, whose
\nevidence may be of some assistance, are generally
\nreluctant to depose in court as they want to keep
\naloof and do not want to antagonise a
\nneighbourhood family. The parents or other family
\nmembers of the bride being away from the scene of
\ncommission  of  crime  are  not in  a  position to give <\/p>\n
direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused
\nexcept regarding the demand of money or dowry and
\nharassment caused to the bride. But, it does not
\nmean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the
\nhouses should go unpunished.\n<\/p>\n
      If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a
\nhouse and in such circumstances where the
\nassailants have all the opportunity to plan and
\ncommit the offence at the time and in circumstances
\nof their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the
\nprosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of
\nthe accused if the strict principle of circumstantial
\nevidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the
\ncourts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial
\nmerely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
\njudge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
\nescape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v.
\nDirector of Public Prosecutions [1944 AC 315] quoted
\nwith approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab
\nv. Karnail Singh<\/a> [2003 (11) SCC 271].  The law does
\nnot enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence
\nof such character which is almost impossible to be
\nled or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The
\nduty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence
\nwhich it is capable of leading, having regard to the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case. Here it is
\nnecessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the
\nEvidence Act which says that when any fact is
\nespecially within the knowledge of any person, the
\nburden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration\n<\/p>\n
(b) appended to this section throws some light on
\nthe content and scope of this provision and it reads:
\n(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway
\nwithout ticket. The burden of proving that he
\nhad a ticket is on him.
\n      Where an offence like murder is committed in
\nsecrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish
\nthe case would undoubtedly be upon the
\nprosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence
\nto be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of
\nthe same degree as is required in other cases of
\ncircumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
\ncomparatively lighter character. In view of Section
\n106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding
\nburden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent
\nexplanation as to how the crime was committed. The
\ninmates of the house cannot get away by simply
\nkeeping quiet and offering no explanation on the
\nsupposed premise that the burden to establish its
\ncase lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is
\nno duty at all on an accused to offer any
\nexplanation.
\n        Similar view has been expressed in State of Punjab vs.
\nKarnail Singh<\/a> [2003 (11) SCC 271], State of Rajasthan vs.
\nKashi Ram<\/a> [2006 (12) SCC 254], Raj Kumar  Prasad Tamakar
\nvs. State of Bihar [2007 (1) SCR 13].\n<\/p>\n
         We are sure, if the learned Single Judge of the High Court
\nhad adverted to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and correctly
\napplied the principles of law, he would not have committed the
\ngrave error of acquitting the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment
\nis set aside and the conviction of the respondent under Section
\n304-B read with 201, IPC is restored.  He is sentenced to seven
\nyears rigorous imprisonment.  He shall also pay fine of Rs.500\/-
\nand suffer further imprisonment of three months in case of default.
\nIf the respondent has already undergone sentence of one year
\nunder Section 498A, IPC in furtherance of the judgment of the High
\nCourt, then he shall serve out six years imprisonment, apart from
\npaying fine.  The respondent shall be immediately taken into
\ncustody to serve out his sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 Author: G Singhvi Bench: G.P. Mathur, G.S. Singhvi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1133 of 2000 PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan RESPONDENT: Jaggu Ram DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/01\/2008 BENCH: G.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-184992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 - 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-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\" \/>\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 Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-10T01:58:14+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=\"25 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-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T01:58:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5034,\"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-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T01:58:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 - 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-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-10T01:58:14+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T01:58:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008"},"wordCount":5034,"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-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T01:58:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-jaggu-ram-on-4-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/184992","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=184992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}