{"id":185079,"date":"1988-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988"},"modified":"2016-12-13T17:37:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T12:07:19","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1998, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 611<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nANIL SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/08\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1998\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 611\n 1988 SCC  Supl.  686\t  JT 1988 (3)\t491\n 1988 SCALE  (2)436\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1988 SC2013\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitutiion of India, 1950: Article 136-Under  article\n136  the  scope\t of appeal very limited-Even  if  two  views\nreasonably  possible court will not interfere with order  of\nacquittal-Court\t will also not hesitate to interfere if\t the\nacquittal is perverse.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondent Anil Singh was tried for the  murder  of\nKeshav Kumar, his erstwhile friend and classmate. The  Trial\nCourt\tconvicted   the\t accused  and\tsentenced   him\t  to\nimprisonment   for  life.  The\tHigh  Court   doubting\t the\ncredibility of the eye-witnesses, discarded the\t prosecution\ncase and acquitted the respondent.\n    Allowing the appeals, it was,\n    HELD: (1) The scope of appeals under Article 136 of\t the\nConstitution  is undisputedly very limited. This Court\tdoes\nnot  exercise  its overriding powers under  Article  136  to\nreweigh\t the  evidence.\t Even if two  views  are  reasonably\npossible,  one\tindicating conviction and  other  acquittal,\nthis  Court will not interfere with the order of  acquittal.\nBut  the  Court\t will  not  hesitate  to  interfere  if\t the\nacquittal is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person\nwould  have come to that conclusion, or if the acquittal  is\nmanifestly illegal or grossly unjust. [6l6A]\n    State  of U.P. v. Yushoda Nandan Gupta, AlR<\/a> 1974 SC\t 753\nand  State  of\tA. P. v. R. Anjaneyulu, AIR<\/a>  1982  SC  1598,\nreferred to.\n    (2)\t The public are generally reluctant to come  forward\nto depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to\nreject\tthe prosecution version only on the ground that\t all\nwitnesses  to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor  it\nis  proper to reject the case for want of  corroboration  by\nindependent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true\nand acceptable. [6l7B-D]\n    (3)\t It  is welt to remember that there  is\t a  tendency\namongst\t witnesses in our country to back up a good case  by\nfalse  or  exaggerated\tversion. The Court  should  made  an\neffort\tto disengage the truth from  falsehood and  to\tsift\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 611\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 612\nthe grain from the chaff rather than  taking an easy  course\nof holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the  whole\ncase as untrue. [617C-D; 617F]\n    Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC and  Abdul\nGani  v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR<\/a> 1954 SC  31,  referred\nto.\n    (4)\t Invariably  the  witnesses add\t embroidery  to\t the\nprosecution   story,   perhaps\tfor  the   fear\t  of   being\ndisbelieved.  But  that\t is  no ground\tto  throw  the\tcase\noverboard, if there is a ring of truth in the main. [6l7G]\n    It\tis the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets  of\ntruth  from the evidence unless there is reason\t to  believe\nthat  the  inconsistencies or falsehood are  so\t glaring  as\nutterly\t to  destroy  confidence in  the  witnesses.  It  is\nnecessary  to remember that a Judge does not preside over  a\ncriminal  trial\t merely\t to  see that  no  innocent  man  is\npunished.  A  Judge also presides to see that a\t guilty\t man\ndoes not escape. One is as important as the other. Both\t are\npublic duties which the Judge has to perform. [6l7G-H; 618A]\n    (6)\t The  Court gave its anxious  consideration  to\t all\nmaterial facts and circumstances of the case and came to the\nconclusion that the decision of the High Court could not  be\nsupported. [622C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL  APPELLATE\t JURlSDICTlON: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n671-672 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  17.4.1980  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978.
\n    A.N.  Mulla, Yogeswar Prasad, Mrs. Sarla  Chand,  Girish
\nChand, Ms. Rachna Joshi and D. Bhandari Advocate (N.P.)\t for
\nthe Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Frank Anthony. J.K. Das, J.R. Das and S.K. Patri for the
\nRespondent .\n<\/p>\n
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    JAGANNATHA\tSHETTY,\t J.  The  State\t of  U.P.   and\t the
\ninformant  have preferred these appeals with special  leave,
\nchallenging the order of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad
\nHigh Court in Criminal\tAppeal No. 2340 of 1978. Anil Singh,
\nthe  common  respondent\t in the appeals was  tried  for\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 613
\nmurder of Keshav Kumar (`K-K’) by the Court of Session (Non-
\nMetropolitan  area), Kanpur. He was convicted and  sentenced
\nto imprisonment for life. But on appeal, he was acquitted by
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The prosecution story of the occurrence may be stated at
\nsome length.\n<\/p>\n
    The respondent-accused and KK were almost of equal\tage.
\nThey are friends as well as class mates. They were also\t co-
\naccused\t in  some minor criminal cases. The accused  was  of
\nviolent\t  temperament.\tHe  used  to  indulge  in   criminal
\nactivities.   His   father   sent  him\t to   his   maternal
\ngrandfather’s house at Faizabad for being better taken\tcare
\nof.  But  he  used  to visit often  his\t native\t place\ti.e.
\nPukhrayan,  where  KK was residing. The accused was  in\t the
\nhabit  of  demanding money from KK. At the  time  of  Diwali
\nfestival  of  the year -i977, the accused asked\t KK  to\t pay
\nRs.2,500.  He wanted to purchase a revolver. It\t is  alleged
\nthat  he even threatened KK that he would be killed  if\t the
\namount was not paid by November 14, 1977. November 14, is  a
\nrejoicing day for children. It is a birth day anniversary of
\nPt.  Jawahar Lal Nehru who was the first Prime\tMinister  of
\nthis  Country. The children  all over called him  and  still
\nremember him as “Cha Cha Nehru”. Every year his birth day is
\ncelebrated as “Children Day” throughout the country. On that
\n14  November 1977, local Jaycees Club arranged Bal-mela\t and
\ncultural  programme.  It was arranged in the  Normal  School
\ncompound  `with sweet-meet and chat-shops. Bal-Mela went  on
\ntill 7 p.m. The cultural programme was to commence at 8 p.m.
\nIn between KK was murdered.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  said that the accused and KK came  to  Bal-Mela.
\nFrom there the accused went along with KK to a nearby place,
\nthat  is  the  varandah\t of  Dr.  Diwedi’s  shop.  There  he
\nassaulted  KK  with knife. Prahlad Kumar who is\t the  eldest
\nbrother\t of KK and some others rushed to the spot.  But\t the
\naccused\t could\tnot be caught. Nor KK could  be\t saved.\t The
\naccused was chased but he ran away by brandishing his knife.
\nThe  fatally  injured KK was seen walking a  few  steps\t and
\nfalling\t down  in  a `Nali’. Prahlad Kumar  lifted  him\t and
\ncarried\t up to some distance for medical attention.  But  on
\nthe way near Khazanchi hotel,  KK succumbed to in juries.
\n    Prahlad  Kumar carried the dead body of his\t brother  to
\nhis  house. So many people followed him. The  Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate  and Tehsildar who were the guests of  honour  at
\nthe  function also went to his house. Ramesh Chander Dube  a
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 614
\nsocial worker and  politician was  very much there.  Prahlad
\nKumar  wrote a report giving fairly all particulars  of\t the
\noccurrence.  He\t took a scooter and went to  Police  Station
\nBhoginpur  which  is  just two miles away  from\t his  house.
\nRamesh Chander Dube accompanied him. They lodged the  report
\nat 9.15 p.m. at the Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
    Kaushal  Chand Tripathi Sub-Inspector was then  incharge
\nof  the Police Station. He was present when the\t report\t was
\nlodged.\t He got the case registered. He immediately went  to
\nthe  scene of occurrence. He also visited the house  of\t the
\ndeceased.  He  found  the dead body lying  on  a  bench.  He
\nconducted the inquest proceedings. Ex. Ka. 1 is the  inquest
\nreport. He sent the dead body with Constables Aley Hasan and
\nTrijugi\t Narain\t for  post-mortem.  Thereafter\the  recorded
\nstatements  of\tpersons.  He  examined\twitnesses  including
\nChottey\t Lal  (PW  2). In the  course  of  interrogation  of
\npersons,  he  came  across a boy called Raju.  He  took\t his
\nstatement  who has been later examined as PW 3 in the  case.
\nOn  the\t following morning at 5.45 a.m.,  the  Investigating
\nOfficer again went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared a
\nsketch\tmap  Ex.  ka.  13. He  found  blood  stains  on\t the
\nfurniture lying in the varandah of Dr. Diwedi’s shop. He got
\nremoved\t two pieces of a bench (Ex. 3 & 4) and one piece  of
\ntable (Ex. 5) which were stained with blood. A memo Ex.\t Ka.
\n15 was prepared in respect thereof. Similarly, he  collected
\nblood stained and unstained earth from the Nali (Ex. 6 & 7).
\nA memo Ex. Ka. 16 was also prepared in evidence thereof.  He
\nalso collected blood stained earth from the Patti under\t the
\nMemo Ex. Ka. 14.\n<\/p>\n
    The Investigating Officer then directed his officers  to
\nsearch and arrest the accused. But accused was not traceable
\nin  the town. The proceedings were initiated under s.  82\/83
\nCriminal  Procedure Code. On 17 November 1977,\the  obtained
\nwarrant\t of  arrest (Ex. Ka. 17).  The\tSub-Inspector  Sital
\nPrasad\twas deputed to execute the warrant. On\t21  November
\n1977  proclamation and warrant of attachment (Ex. Ka.  18  &
\nKa. 19) were obtained and executed properly. The property of
\naccused\t was  attached under Memo Ex. Ka. 20.  It  was\tonly
\nthereafter  the\t accused  appeared  in\tthe  Police  Station
\nKotwali. On 26 November 1977 he was arrested at Kotwali.
\n    Before  the trial court, the prosecution in\t support  of
\nthe  case examined Prahlad Kumar (PW 1), Chhotey Lal (PW  2)
\nand Raju (PW 3) as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rest  of
\nthe  evidence of prosecution is more or less formal. On\t the
\nother side, Ramesh Chander Dube (DW 1), Karan Singh (DW\t 2),
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 615
\nBalak  Das  (DW 3) and Shri Prasad (DW 4) were\texamined  as
\ndefence witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t trial Court upon consideration of all the  material
\non record accepted the case made out by the prosecution. The
\ntrial  Court convicted the accused for the murder of KK\t and
\nsentenced him to imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
    The High Court of Allahabad set aside the conviction and
\nsentence,  and acquitted the accused. The High\tCourt  first
\nsurveyed  some\tbroad aspects of the case  and\treached\t the
\nconclusion that the relations between the family of  accused
\nand  KK\t were strained. The High Court then  considered\t the
\nevidence of eye-witnesses and disbelieved them by  attaching
\none  or the other doubt against their  credibility.  Prahlad
\nKumar  (PW  1) was disbelieved on the grounds:\tHe  did\t not
\ndisclose the name of person who first informed him about the
\nassault\t on KK. He did not disclose the name of\t accused  to
\nthe  Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar when they\tcame
\nto his house. He did not ask them to call the Police and get
\nthe accused arrested. The High Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
    “Sub-Divisional Magistrate is incharge of a Sub-Division
\nand  has  to maintain law and order. The  Police  ordinarily
\nacts  under  his  directions.  In  these  circumstances\t had
\nPrahlad\t Kumar\tseen  the occurrence and  the  assailant  he
\nshould\thave  immediately  made\t a  complaint  to  the\tSub-
\nDivisional Magistrate who came up soon after the occurrence.
\nThe  silence  of Prahlad Kumar in this\trespect\t is  clearly
\nindicative of the fact that he had neither seen any part  of
\nthe occurrence nor he had seen the assailant.
\n    Chhotey  Lal  (PW  2)  was\tcharacterised  as  a  chance
\nwitness. His presence at the place of occurrence was doubted
\nwith the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
    “Another  fact which is conspicuous in his statement  is
\nthat he and his 2 companions left the market at the time  of
\nsun  set  for their village. In the middle of  November\t the
\ntime  of setting in of the sun is about 5.30 p.m.  There  is
\ndusk for about 45 minutes. Thus it appears that these  three
\npersons\t left  the market if not at about  5.30\t p.m.,\tthen
\nalteast at about 5. 15 p.m. They could easily cover distance
\nof  2 miles in an hour’s time. Therefore, by 7.15 p.m.\tthey
\ncould\thave   easily  reached\ttheir\tvillage.   In\tthis
\ncircumstance it does not stand to reason that they left\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 616
\nmarket\tat 7.30 or 7.45 p.m. From this aspect of the  matter
\nthe  version given by Chhotey Lal about his presence at\t the
\ntime of occurrence is not fee from doubt.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t testimony  of Raju (PW 3) was rejected\t by  stating
\nthat  he was a child witness. that he did not figure in\t the
\nFIR as an eye-witness, and his explanation for his  presence
\nat the spot was not reasonable. The High Court said:\n<\/p>\n
    “He\t has stated that his elder brother had told  him  to
\ncome up early and that on account of fear of being beaten by
\nhis brother he left the chabutara and proceeded towards\t his
\nhouse.\tIt  will be noticed that he had left the  Mela\tarea
\nwith  his Thela at about 7.30 p.m. It is thereafter that  he
\nagain  returned\t to the Mela area he took 10-15\t minutes  in
\nshifting  the chairs from the place of his shop to the\tdais
\nof  the drama. It is evident that just 15 minutes  later  he
\nleft  the Mela area. Assuming for a moment that his  brother
\nhad  told  him to come early it did not mean that  he  would
\nreturn to the house within less than half an hour. Moreover,
\nhe  did not tell the Investigating Officer that he left\t the
\nMela  so  soon on account of fear of his  brother.  We\tare,
\ntherefore,  of\tthe  opinion  that  Raju  has  not  given  a
\nreasonable  explanation of his leaving the Mela area  within
\nabout 15 minutes of his keeping the chairs near the place of
\ndrama.\tTherefore,  his\t presence  at the  time\t of  assault
\ncannot be believed.”\n<\/p>\n
    With  these\t and  other  conclusions,  the\tHigh   Court
\ndiscarded the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t  scope\t of  appeals  under  Article  136   of\t the
\nConstitution  is undisputedly very much limited. This  Court
\ndoes  not exercise its over-riding powers under Article\t 136
\nto  reweigh  the evidence. The Court does  not\tdisturb\t the
\nconcurrent   finding   of   facts   reached   upon    proper
\nappreciation. Even if two views are reasonably possible, one
\nindicating  conviction and other acquittal, this Court\twill
\nnot interfere with the order of acquittal, [See:(i) State of
\nU.P. v. Yashoda Nandan Gupta, AIR<\/a> 1974 SC 753 and (ii) State
\nof  A.P. v. P. Anjaneyulu, AIR<\/a> 1982 SC 1598] But this  Court
\nwill not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is  perverse
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 617
\nin  the sense that no reasonable person would have  come  to
\nthat  conclusion, or if the acquittal is manifestly  illegal
\nor grossly unjust.\n<\/p>\n
    On late this Court has been receiving a large number  of
\nappeals\t against  acquittals and in the\t great\tmajority  of
\ncases,\tthe prosecution version is rejected either for\twant
\nof  corroboration  by  independent witnesses,  or  for\tsome
\nfalsehood  stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In\tsome
\ncases,\tthe  entire  prosecution case  is  doubted  for\t not
\nexamining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have  recently
\npointed\t out the indifferent attitude of the public  in\t the
\ninvestigation of crimes. The public are generally  reluctant
\nto  come  forward  to  depose  before  the  Court.  It\t is,
\ntherefore,  not\t correct to reject the\tprosecution  version
\nonly on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have
\nnot  been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case\t for
\nwant  of corroboration by independent witnesses if the\tcase
\nmade  out is otherwise true and acceptable. With  regard  to
\nfalsehood stated or embellishments added by the\t prosecution
\nwitnesses,  it is well to remember that there is a  tendency
\namongst\t witnesses in our country to back up a good case  by
\nfalse  or  exaggerated\tversion. The Privy  Council  had  an
\noccasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24
\nC.W.N. 626 PC, the  Privy Council had this to say (at 628):\n<\/p>\n
    “That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that
\na  case must be false if some of the evidence in support  of
\nit appears to be doubtful or is clearly unture, since  there
\nis, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to\tback
\nup  a good case by false or exaggerated evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tAbdul Gani v. State of Madya Pradesh AIR<\/a> 1954 SC  31
\nMahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency
\nof  courts  to take an easy course of holding  the  evidence
\ndiscrepant  and\t discarding the whole case  as\tuntrue.\t The
\nlearned\t Judge said that the Court should make an effort  to
\ndisengage  the\ttruth from falsehood and to sift  the  grain
\nfrom the chaff.\n<\/p>\n
    It is also our experience that invariably the  witnesses
\nadd embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of
\nbeing  disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the\tcase
\noverboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth
\nin the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty
\nof  the\t Court\tto cull out the nuggets of  truth  from\t the
\nevidence  unless  there\t is  reason  to\t believe  that\t the
\ninconsistencies\t or falsehood are so glaring as\t utterly  to
\ndestroy\t confidence  in the witnesses. It  is  necessary  to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 618
\nremember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial
\nmerely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also
\npresides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as
\nimportant  as  the other. Both are public duties  which\t the
\nJudge has to perform.\n<\/p>\n
    In the instant case, the trial judge and the High  Court
\nhave accepted the fact that the report to Police was  lodged
\nby  Prahlad  Kumar (PW 1) at 9.15 p.m. That means  that\t the
\nreport\tdisclosing the name of accused did reach the  Police
\nStation\t immediately  after the murder. This is\t a  positive
\nfinding\t in favour of prosecution. The report  contains\t all
\nparticulars  including\tthe  motive for the  crime  and\t the
\nmanner\tin which it was committed. It gives us the names  of
\neye-witnesses  as well. It also gives a clear picture as  to
\nwhat  KK did after the attack and how the accused made\tgood
\nhis escape.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas  argued by Shri Frank  Anthony,  learned  senior
\ncounsel for the accused that it would be impossible for\t any
\nperson\tto prepare such an exhaustive report and  lodge\t the
\nsame  before  the  Police  so  soon  after  the\t occurrence.
\nAccording  to  counsel, the report must have  been  prepared
\nafter the inquest and non-mentioning of the time of despatch
\nof FIR to the Court would lend support to his submission. We
\ncarefully examined the material on record. We are unable  to
\naccept\tthe  submission\t of learned counsel.  In  the  first
\nplace,\tPW  1 was not specifically cross  examined  on\tthis
\nmatter.\t The  Court  cannot  therefore,\t presume   something
\nadverse to the witness unless his attention  is specifically
\ndrawn  to.  Secondly,  the  records  contain   unimpeachable
\nevidence  to  the contrary. Apart from the  records  of\t the
\nPolice\tStation,  the  Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka.  7)  to  which
\nRamesh\tChandra\t Duty(DW  1)  has  admittedly  appended\t his
\nsignature  shows  that the reporting time of the  crime\t was
\n9.15  p.m. DW 1 accompanied Prahlad Kumar to Police  Station
\nto lodge the report though he later defected to the defence.
\nHe is a political figure and social worker. Highly qualified
\ntoo.  He  would\t not have signed the  Panchayatnama  if\t the
\nstatement therein were not true and correct.
\n    Equally  there cannot be any dispute about the place  of
\ncommission  of\tcrime.\tIt was committed  in  front  of\t Dr.
\nDiwedi’s shop. Portions of the blood stained furniture\thave
\nbeen collected from the place (Ex. Ka. 15 & 14). It has been
\nproved by the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW\t 7).
\nHis evidence remains unchallenged.\n<\/p>\n
    If\twe critically examine the evidence of PW 1 there  is
\nnothing to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 619
\ndoubt  the correctness of the version given by him.  He\t was
\none of the persons who organised the programme. His presence
\nat  the place was therefore quite natural. He has  testified
\nto  the\t presence of KK going with the accused at  the\tBal-
\nMela. It is an evidence of the last seen together. It is  an
\nimportant  piece of evidence. PW 1 could not be\t disbelieved
\non the gound that he did not mention the name of accused  to
\nSub-Divisional\tMagistrate and Tehsildar. Nor  his  evidence
\ncould  be  doubted on the ground that he did  not  seek\t the
\nassistance  of the said officers to secure the police  help.
\nIt  is\tunthinkable that the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate\t and
\nTehsildar  were not kept informed about the  assailant.\t The
\ncrime  was  committed at a public place crowed\tby  persons.
\nThey had assembled there to witness the cultural  programme.
\nThe   Sub-Divisional  Magistrate  cancelled   the   cultural
\nprogramme  because  of commission of the crime.\t The  people
\nwould have naturally asked why the programme was  cancelled?
\nWho murdered whom and why? It is a natural human tendency in
\nsuch  situations.  The news of the murder must\thave  spread
\nlike  a wild fire. The name of accused must have been  known
\nto everybody gathered there. It is unfortunate that the High
\nCourt overlooked these\tcircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
    The other reason given by the High Court to discard\t the
\nevidence  of  PW 1 is that he did not disclose the  name  of
\nperson who first informed him about the murderous attack  on
\nKK.  This reasoning of the High Court apparently  reveals  a
\nlack  of  experience  of man and matters. There\t was  a\t big
\ngathering  at  the Normal School Compound. The\tpeople\twere
\nwaiting to see the cultural programme. It was to commence at
\n8.00  PM. The time was hearing. PW 1 was at the stage as  be
\nwas  one  of the organisers. He was then informed  that\t his
\nbrother\t KK  was being assaulted by the accused.  The  first
\nimpulse\t of  PW\t 1 must have been to rush to  the  scene  of
\noccurrence  and\t not  to remember the name  or\tidentity  of
\nperson who informed him. The place of occurrence was  hardly
\nabout 25 paces from the stage set for cultural programme. PW
\n1 must have rushed to the place in a minute. There must have
\nbeen  some altercation between the accused and KK. It  could
\nhave  taken  some time. PW 1 must have reached\twithin\tthat
\ntime. The medical evidence supports this version. There\t are
\nas many as eight incised wounds on KK. The doctor has stated
\nthat KK could have survived 10-15 minutes after the  assault
\nand moved 15-2() paces. PW I has stated that KK went towards
\nNali  and fell down. He along with Dhruv lifted KK from\t the
\nNali  and carried him towards the clinic of Dr.Mishra.\tEven
\nthe  defence witness Ramesh Chander has admitted that PW  1,
\nDhruv and others were present at the Nali where KK was lying
\ninjured.  It is, therefore, quite unreasonable to hold\tthat
\nPW 1 could  not have seen the assault on KK.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 620
\n    It was, however, urged that there was no light in  front
\nof the shop of Dr. Diwedi and PW 1 or other witnesses  could
\nnot  have identified the accused. Shiv Prasad Mishra (DW  4)
\nhas been produced  to testify that the street mercury  light
\nwas  not burning on that day. We may accept the evidence  of
\nDW  4,\tbut  we cannot accept that  there  was\tno  lighting
\narrangement  at\t the  public  function.\t The  Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate  and Tehsildar were present at the function.\t Bal
\nMela commencing at 7.00 PM and cultural programme at 8.00 PM
\ncould  not  have been arranged in  darkness.  Theprosecution
\nwitnesss   have\t stated\t  that\tapart  from   the   lighting
\narrangement at the function, there was an electric light  in
\nfront  of the shop of Dr. Diwedi. It is also on record\tthat
\nthere  was  another light near the  Khazanchi  hotel.  Quite
\nnatural\t the area must have been well-lit for the  function.
\nThat apart, the accused\t was not a stranger to the place. He
\nwas  at\t any rate familiar to PW 1’and his  family  members.
\nThere was, therefore, no scope for any mistaken identity  of
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
    The reason given by the High Court for disbelieving\t the
\nevidence of Chhotey Lal PW 2 is fanciful. PW 2 is a resident
\nof the village\tAstiya. The village is at a distance of\t two
\nmiles from Pukhrayan town. It will be seen from his evidence
\nthat   he  along  with\tBaijnath  and\tManuwa\t maharaj-all
\nresidents of the same village had gone to the town for their
\nrequirements.  PW  2  wanted iron  nails,  Manuwa   required
\nvegetables  and\t Baijnath had to purchase iron\trods.  After
\npurchasing the respective goods, they proceeded toward their
\nvillage.  When they reached the tehsil, they came across  3-
\n4-5 boys who told  them that there was Bal Mela and cultural
\nprogramme  in the Normal School. It was natural for them  to
\nstay  on to see the cultural programme. They came  to  their
\ngrain  dealer.\tThey kept their articles at  his  place\t and
\nafter  some time they started towards the Normal  School  at
\nabout  7.30  or\t 7.45 PM. When\tthey  were  approaching\t the
\nKhazanchi   hotel, they saw the accused assaulting  KK.\t The
\nevidence  of  PW  2  receives corroboration from  PW  1.  He
\nfigures\t as an eye-witness in the  FIR. He  cannot,therefore
\nbe categoried as a chance witness.\n<\/p>\n
    The accused tried to give negative evidence to show that
\nthe   market  in Pukhrayan town to every Monday\t was  closed
\nand, therefore, the presence of PW 2 was not probable. PW  2
\nhas admitted that the market used to remain ‘closed on every
\nMonday, but the general\t merchandise and hardware shops\t are
\nnot closed. In our opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve
\nthe statement of PW 1.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t third\teye-witness in this case is Raju  PW  3.  It
\nseems  to  us  that he is an important witness. He  had\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 621
\ncourage\t to come forward to depose in favour of\t prosecution
\nin  spite  of his father going as a  defence   witness.\t The
\ntrial court upon preliminary examination has opined that  he
\nis  an intelligent boy and able to give rational answers  to
\nquestions  put to him. He was then a student of class IV  in
\nthe Normal School. His father opened a chat-shop at the\t Bal
\nMela.  PW  3 was in that shop. There is no  disput  on\tthis
\nfact.  According  to  him, after Bal Mela  he  arranged\t the
\nchairs\tof his shop in front of the stage set  for  cultural
\nprogramme.  He\tmet  some  of his friends  and\tsat  at\t the
\nchabutara  by  the side of the stage. While leaving  to\t his
\nhouse,\the  saw a crowd by the side of Khazanchi  hotel\t and
\nstopped\t there to find out what was happening. It  is  quite
\nnatural for boys to peep into the crowd. He has deposed that
\nhe saw the accused hitting KK with knife, but out of fear he
\nran from that place. His house is situated at a distance  of
\nabout 100 yards from the Mela ground. To cover that distance
\none  cannot take much time. Nor it is necessary to give\t any
\nsufficient  cause for his presence at the place. One  should
\nbring to bear the knowledge and experience of life. Since he
\nwas  a\tstudent of the Normal School, his  presence  at\t the
\nplace was natural. His name might not have been mentioned in
\nthe  FIR,  but that is understandable. PW 1 might  not\thave
\nremembered him or noticed him. He was in a hurry to rush  to
\nthe spot to save his brother.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Investigation\tOfficer\t has deposed  that  when  he
\nstarted\t interogating witnesses at the spot, he came  across
\nRaju  who said that he had seen the incident. His  statement
\nwas immediately recorded. In the Court, Raju has been  cross
\nexamined   at the great length. But nothing substantial\t has
\nbeen elicited to shake his credibility. What is\t significant
\nto   note in this context is the attempt of th father  (DW3)
\nto  destroy  the  credibility of the son. His  father  as  a
\ndefence\t witness  has stated that after the  Mela  they\t had
\nreturned  to house at about 6.30PM and thereafter  they\t did
\nnot go out of the house for the Whole night. The trial court
\nafter  carefully  examining the testimony of DW\t 3  observed
\nthat  he  is  absolutely unreliable. It has  held  that\t the
\ntestimony of DW 3 that he alongwith his son remained in\t the
\nhouse  after 6.30 PM and slept at about 8.30 PM is  unworthy
\nof  belief  since  their  house is  admittedly\tat  a  close
\ndistance  from the Normal School Compound. This\t observation
\nof the trial court is not unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t post  crime conduct of the accused cannot  also  be
\nlost  sight of. The plea of alibi has not been\tpursued.  It
\nhas  been proved that the accused was not available  in\t the
\ntown  after the occurrence till 34 November 1977. It  is  on
\nrecord\t that  the  accused  could  not\t be   traced\t and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 622
\nproceedings under sec. 82\/83 Cr. Penal Code were  initiated.
\nThe  warrant of arrest issued against the  accused  returned
\nunserved. There-after proclamation was made and his property
\nwas  attached. That was on 23 November 1977. He appeared  on
\nthe  next day in the Police Station Kotwali. That  has\tbeen
\nproved\tby the general diary entry (Ex.Ka. 22) of  the\tsaid
\nPolice Station.\n<\/p>\n
    It may be noted that the investigation in this case\t was
\nconducted   without  loss  of time.  Since  the\t murder\t was
\ncommitted  at  a  public  place\t where\tthe   Sub-Divisional
\nmagistrate  and\t Tehsildar were present,  the  Investigating
\nOfficer\t  must\thave  been  keen  to  arrest   the   accused
\nimmediately.  That  was\t perhaps  the  reason  why  he\ttook
\nproceedings   under  sec.  82\/83  Cr.P.C.  We  must   really
\nappreciate the proper and prompt investigation made in\tthis
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
    We have given our anxious consideration to all  material
\nfacts  and  circumstances of the case. It seems to us,\tthat
\nthe decision of the High  Court cannot be supported.
\n    In\tthe  result,  we  allow\t these\tappeals,  set  aside
\njudgment  of  the  High Court and rstore that of  the  trial
\ncourt.\tThe  conviction\t and  sentence\tawarded\t aginst\t the
\naccused are restored. He shall undergo the remaining part of
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
    R.S.S.\t\t\t\t Appeals allowed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1998, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 611 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIL SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/08\/1988 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) CITATION: 1988 […]<\/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-185079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 - 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-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-13T12:07:19+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=\"24 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-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T12:07:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\"},\"wordCount\":4314,\"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-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T12:07:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988\"}]},{\"@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 U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 - 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-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-13T12:07:19+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988","datePublished":"1988-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T12:07:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988"},"wordCount":4314,"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-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988","name":"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T12:07:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-anil-singh-on-26-august-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988"}]},{"@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\/185079","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=185079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}