{"id":187440,"date":"2010-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-06T04:29:00","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T22:59:00","slug":"vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010<\/div>\n
                                  1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                          JODHPUR.\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\nVinod Kumar                 vs.             State of Rajasthan\n\n\n       (1)DBCriminal Appeal No.589\/2003\n\n\nPahar Singh                 vs.             State of Rajasthan\n\n\n       (2)DBCriminal Appeal No.549\/2003\n\n\n\n              Against    the   judgment   dated\n              1.5.2003 passed by Additional\n              Sessions   Judge   (Fast  Track),\n              Churu in Sessions Case No.31\/2002\n              (22\/2002).\n\n\n\nDate of Judgment                ::         26th February, 2010\n\n\n\n\n                        P R E S E N T\n\n              HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR\n                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.TOTLA\n\n\nMr.   Mridul Jain]\nMr.   DL Rawla   ] for the appellants.\nMr.   KR Bishnoi, PP, for the State.\nMr.   MK Garg, for the complainant.\n                           ....\n\n\n\nBY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.)<\/pre>\n
            These two appeals are preferred to challenge<\/p>\n
the    judgment   and   order     dated   1.5.2003   passed   by<\/p>\n
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Churu
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
convicting       the    accused      appellants       for    the    offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 302\/34 IPC. The trial court<\/p>\n
after    recording      the    conviction       aforesaid,        sentenced<\/p>\n
the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
life term with a fine of Rs.500\/- and in default to<\/p>\n
payment of the same further to undergo three months’<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            As    per    the       prosecution,       on    13.6.2002    at<\/p>\n
11:30 PM, the Station House Officer of Police Station<\/p>\n
Kotwali, Churu recorded ‘parcha bayan’ (Ex.P\/12) of<\/p>\n
Shri Noratmal son of Ramlal stating therein that at<\/p>\n
about    10:00    PM    of    the    same     day   when    he    alongwith<\/p>\n
Salim,    resident       of    Rajaldesar       was    sitting      at   the<\/p>\n
stairs of Shyam Hall, Vinod son of Surajbhan Brahman<\/p>\n
and Paharia son of Dungar Bhaat came with knives and<\/p>\n
then Vinod put him down and gave a knife blow on his
\nchest. Paharia gave a knife blow at the thigh of his<\/p>\n
left leg. A knife blow was again given by Vinod at his<\/p>\n
back. On gathering of nearby persons, including the<\/p>\n
cinema employees,            the    assailants ran         away    from the<\/p>\n
spot.    Noratmal      further       stated    that    Vinod      quarreled<\/p>\n
with him two days earlier too on the issue of his<\/p>\n
coming to the colony and only for that reason he and<\/p>\n
Paharia assaulted him with an intention to kill. As<\/p>\n
per the statement of Noratmal, after some time his<\/p>\n
maternal uncle Vinod etc. came to the spot and brought<\/p>\n
him to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
             On basis of the statements aforesaid, a case<\/p>\n
was lodged for commission of offences under Sections<\/p>\n
307, 324 IPC and regular investigation was initiated.<\/p>\n
On 14.6.2002 Noratmal was referred to Sawai Maan Singh<\/p>\n
Hospital, Jaipur for further treatment but in transit<\/p>\n
he succumbed to the injuries, therefore, investigation<\/p>\n
was   made   for     the    offences        punishable under Section<\/p>\n
302\/34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             After    regular       investigation,          charge     sheet<\/p>\n
was filed and charges were framed for commission of<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 302 and 302\/34 IPC. On denial<\/p>\n
of the same, trial was conducted and during the course<\/p>\n
of trial ten witnesses were examined in support of the<\/p>\n
prosecution     and        29    documents        were    exhibited.       The<\/p>\n
accused persons were also put forth for examination as<\/p>\n
per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they
\ndenied entire case of the prosecution and they also<\/p>\n
produced two documents in defence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Learned       trial     court,       while     relying       upon<\/p>\n
witnesses PW-6 Asharam; PW-9 Goruram; PW-7 Vinod; PW-<\/p>\n
10 Fariyad Khan, the Investigating Officer, and also<\/p>\n
the   prosecution          documents,         convicted     the   accused<\/p>\n
appellants.        While        challenging        the    same,      it     is<\/p>\n
contended by       Shri     Mridul      Jain,     learned     counsel for<\/p>\n
appellant     Vinod    that       two       eye   witnesses    viz.       PW-6<\/p>\n
Asharam and PW-9 Goruram are not at all eye witnesses<\/p>\n
and they were introduced with the prosecution case as
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
an after thought. Learned counsel specifically pointed<\/p>\n
out that in ‘parcha bayan’ Ex.P\/12, Noratmal nowhere<\/p>\n
referred presence of Asharam and Goruram though both<\/p>\n
the persons were known to him. It is further pointed<\/p>\n
out that Goruram in his statements in quite specific<\/p>\n
terms stated that Asharam was accompanying him while<\/p>\n
carrying      Noratmal       to     the     hospital,       whereas         PW-6<\/p>\n
Asharam    stated          that     Noratmal       was     taken       to   the<\/p>\n
hospital, whereas by Vinod and Goruram only. It is<\/p>\n
also   urged       that    Noratmal in       ‘parcha       bayan’ Ex.P\/12<\/p>\n
stated     about      presence        of     Salim        with        him   but<\/p>\n
prosecution failed to produce him in evidence and as<\/p>\n
such entire story is concocted one with support of PW-<\/p>\n
6   Asharam    and        PW-9    Goruram    who    happen       to    be   the<\/p>\n
persons belonging to the caste of deceased Noratmal.<\/p>\n
              The next argument advanced by counsel for
\nthe appellants is that the recovery of knives on basis<\/p>\n
of disclosure statements is not at all in accordance<\/p>\n
with   law.    It    is     urged    that    Ex.P\/24       is    the    report<\/p>\n
relating      to    disclosure       statements          made    by    accused<\/p>\n
Vinod Kumar as per provisions of Section 27 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Evidence Act, wherein he has said that “\u0935 \u091a \u0915<\/p>\n
\u092e\u0928 \u0905\u092a\u0928 \u092e\u0915 \u0928 \u0930 \u0939 \u092f\u0936 \u0915 \u092e\u0928 \u0917\u091f \u0938 \u0926 \u0916 \u0932 \u0939 \u0924 \u0939 \u092c \u0908 \u0924 \u092b \u092c\u0928 \u0915 \u0920<\/p>\n
\u092e” \u0915 \u0928 \u092e” \u092a\u0921 \u092a$ \u0928 \u0915\u092a\u0921% \u0915 \u0928 \u091a \u091b’\u092a \u0915                  \u0939$\u0906 \u0939, \u091c \u092e \u091a\u0932\u0915 \u092c\u0924<\/p>\n
\u0926* \u0917 \u0964” As per counsel for the appellants the information<\/p>\n
said to be given is ambiguous as it nowhere mentions<\/p>\n
about the incident in that the knife concern was said
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
to be used. Same is the position with the disclosure<\/p>\n
statement made by accused Pahar Singh under Ex.P\/22.<\/p>\n
While challenging the worth of the evidence relating<\/p>\n
to recovery of weapon, it is also stated that as a<\/p>\n
matter of fact the knife was not even marked at the<\/p>\n
time of recovery as that is apparent from Ex.P\/10 and<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/16, but as per Ex.P\/9-A while sending them for<\/p>\n
forensic     examination         to         the         Forensic      Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, those were shown to be marked and, that<\/p>\n
creates doubt about bonafides of the prosecution, as<\/p>\n
such the court should not have relied upon recovery of<\/p>\n
these articles. It is also urged that Ex.P\/19 i.e. the<\/p>\n
letter dated 13.6.2002 seeking necessary information<\/p>\n
regarding     fitness     of      Noratmal          for       getting      his<\/p>\n
statement    recorded     which    also       bears       a   note    of   the<\/p>\n
doctor about fitness of Noratmal to give statement,<\/p>\n
was not a part of charge sheet and that was placed on
\nrecord first time on 21.1.2003. Being submitted at a<\/p>\n
later stage, it was not possible for the defence to<\/p>\n
cross examine the doctor in this regard and as such<\/p>\n
the trial court erroneously considered the contents of<\/p>\n
the document Ex.P\/20 dated 14.6.2002. At last and in<\/p>\n
alternative, learned counsel for the appellants urged<\/p>\n
that   no   motive   is    shown        by        the     prosecution      for<\/p>\n
assaulting deceased Noratmal by the accused persons<\/p>\n
and the intention to kill him is also conspicuously<\/p>\n
absent,     therefore,     even        by    accepting          prosecution<\/p>\n
story, case     against    the    appellants             does   not   travel<\/p>\n
beyond an offence under Section 304 part-II IPC.
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
              While supporting the conviction recorded and<\/p>\n
the    sentence          awarded,       learned           Public      Prosecutor<\/p>\n
pointed     out     that    PW-9       Goruram       and    PW-6    Asharam     in<\/p>\n
quite unambiguous terms narrated the entire incident<\/p>\n
and    no    reason        is    available         to      disbelieve       their<\/p>\n
testimony.         As    per     learned       Public        Prosecutor        the<\/p>\n
grievous injuries given by the accused persons at the<\/p>\n
vital parts of the body of deceased Noratmal clearly<\/p>\n
establishes that the accused persons were intending to<\/p>\n
give such blows those may cause death.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Considered the arguments advanced by learned<\/p>\n
counsels and also examined the record.<\/p>\n
              As per the ‘parcha bayan’ Ex.P\/12, Noratmal<\/p>\n
stated      that    Vinod       gave    him    a     knife     blow    at   first
\ninstance on his chest and then at his back and in the<\/p>\n
meanwhile one knife blow was given at the thigh of his<\/p>\n
left leg by accused Paharia. At the time of incident<\/p>\n
as    per    the    Ex.P\/12        Salim       was      with    Noratmal       and<\/p>\n
subsequently his maternal uncle Vinod etc. came and<\/p>\n
brought      him    to     hospital.         The   term      used     “etc.”   in<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/12 is quite important. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants         during       the    course        of     arguments,       much<\/p>\n
emphasised on the fact that Noratmal in his ‘parcha<\/p>\n
bayan’ Ex.P\/12 nowhere referred presence of Asharam<\/p>\n
and Goruram though they were known to him, thus, they<\/p>\n
in fact were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. On
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration        of    the        entire    material       available     on<\/p>\n
record, we are of the view that such omission is not<\/p>\n
much relevant in present case. As a matter of fact<\/p>\n
Noratmal in        Ex.P\/12       stated that        his      maternal uncle<\/p>\n
Vinod etc. came and this “etc.” includes other persons<\/p>\n
who    took    him   to        the    hospital.     Expectation      from     a<\/p>\n
person seriously injured as a consequent to stabbing<\/p>\n
for giving each and every details immediately after<\/p>\n
the incident is too high. A person suffering from such<\/p>\n
grievous injuries at that stage could have given broad<\/p>\n
outlines relating to the crime occurred, making the<\/p>\n
investigating agency able to make further probe in the<\/p>\n
matter.       In     the        instant        matter        all   necessary<\/p>\n
preliminary informations to make further investigation<\/p>\n
with the entire incident are available in Ex.P\/12. As<\/p>\n
such,       non-reference            of   Goruram      and    Asharam      with<\/p>\n
‘parcha bayan’ is not material or to say enough to
\ndemolish the prosecution case, specially looking to<\/p>\n
the fact that the term “etc.” was used by Noratmal<\/p>\n
while       referring      other          persons      present     with     his<\/p>\n
maternal uncle Vinod.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              PW-6 Asharam, in his statements, stated that<\/p>\n
he    was    watching      a    film      in   Shyam    Cinema     and    being<\/p>\n
thirsty he came out and saw two persons assaulting one<\/p>\n
person with knives. At that time Goruram too came.<\/p>\n
This witness identified these two persons as Vinod and<\/p>\n
Pahar Singh. He also stated that Noratmal was taken to<\/p>\n
hospital in tempo by his maternal uncle and Goruram.
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
In his entire statement, there is nothing on basis of<\/p>\n
which   it       can      be    said       that    he       was    not       a     person<\/p>\n
trustworthy. True it is, that he was not having any<\/p>\n
memory of film’s name that he was watching, but that<\/p>\n
is of no consequence in view of the fact that after<\/p>\n
the incident he did not choose to continue to watch<\/p>\n
the film.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Similarly, PW-9 Goruram also stated that on<\/p>\n
the fateful day he was standing outside the picture<\/p>\n
hall with his tempo and was waiting for passengers and<\/p>\n
at   that      time       he   saw     Vinod       Kumar      and          Pahar    Singh<\/p>\n
stabbing Noratmal. He also stated about presence of<\/p>\n
Asharam     at      the    spot      and    further         presence          of    Vinod<\/p>\n
(maternal uncle of deceased) at the spot on calling.<\/p>\n
He also stated that he accompanied Vinod and Asharam<\/p>\n
in carrying Noratmal to hospital. True it is, PW-6
\nAsharam in his statement did not stated that he also<\/p>\n
accompanied          to    Vinod       and        Goruram         while       carrying<\/p>\n
Noratmal       to      Hospital,        but       merely          on       that     count<\/p>\n
testimony of Goruram or Asharam cannot be disbelieved.<\/p>\n
There     is     no       contradiction           of    such           a    nature    in<\/p>\n
statements of both the eye witnesses that may warrant<\/p>\n
their total ignorance in evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               The     another       argument          of    counsel          for    the<\/p>\n
appellants          that       the     recovery         made       on        basis    of<\/p>\n
disclosure statements made by the accused appellant is<\/p>\n
not reliable being having no reference of the incident
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
in which the knives recovered were used. This argument<\/p>\n
is    also     of    no     consequence,      as    no   explanation      is<\/p>\n
available for having human blood stains on the knife<\/p>\n
recovered       from      accused     Vinod.       Beside    this,     after<\/p>\n
holding the evidence given by eye witnesses absolutely<\/p>\n
trustworthy, the other arguments are not at all of the<\/p>\n
nature on basis of which the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
could     be    dismentaled,        thus,     certain       irregularities<\/p>\n
pointed out by counsel for the appellants deserves to<\/p>\n
be avoided.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Now    the    important       question       that   requires<\/p>\n
consideration is that whether the trial court rightly<\/p>\n
convicted           the     accused        appellants       for      offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 302 IPC?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               From examination of entire evidence, we find
\nthat the accused persons specially accused Vinod may<\/p>\n
be having the knowledge that causing injury with knife<\/p>\n
on chest or back may cause death, but no sufficient<\/p>\n
evidence is available to establish that the accused<\/p>\n
persons were having any intention to cause death or to<\/p>\n
cause such bodily injury that may cause death. True it<\/p>\n
is,   a   minor       reference       is   given    in   ‘parcha     bayan’<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/12 that some quarrel occurred between Vinod and<\/p>\n
deceased Noratmal 2-3 days back, but merely on that<\/p>\n
basis intention for killing cannot be established. The<\/p>\n
occurrence of quarrel few days back may had been a<\/p>\n
motive for committing the crime, but in no way an
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
inference       can    be   drawn      on     that    basis        regarding<\/p>\n
intention to cause death. We are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
the    case     of     present    accused         appellants       in     such<\/p>\n
circumstances does not travel beyond offence provided<\/p>\n
under Section 304 part-II IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              For     the   reasons,        we    dispose     of       instant\n\nappeals    in    the    terms    that       the    appeals       are    partly\n\n<\/pre>\n
allowed and the accused persons viz. Vinod Kumar son<\/p>\n
of Shri Surajbhan and Pahar Singh son of Dungar Ram<\/p>\n
Rao,   are      convicted      under       Section    304    part-II          IPC<\/p>\n
instead of Section 302 IPC. For the conviction under<\/p>\n
the provision aforesaid they are sentenced to suffer<\/p>\n
rigorous      imprisonment       of    eight      years     with       fine    of<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/- each and in default to further suffer one<\/p>\n
month’s simple imprisonment. The impugned judgment of<\/p>\n
learned      trial     court     stands      modified       as     indicated
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
( C.M.TOTLA ),J.                                  ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n\n\n\n\nMathuria KK\/ps.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T Vinod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1)DBCriminal Appeal No.589\/2003 Pahar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2)DBCriminal Appeal No.549\/2003 Against the judgment dated 1.5.2003 […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nVinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-05T22:59:00+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T22:59:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1965,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T22:59:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-05T22:59:00+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T22:59:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"},"wordCount":1965,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","name":"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T22:59:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinod Kumar vs State on 26 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187440","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=187440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}