{"id":187820,"date":"1982-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982"},"modified":"2017-12-14T15:36:15","modified_gmt":"2017-12-14T10:06:15","slug":"maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982","title":{"rendered":"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 126, \t\t 1983 SCR (2)\t 45<\/div>\n
Author: B Islam<\/div>\n
Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAQSOODAN & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [AND VICE-VERSA]\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR  126\t\t  1983 SCR  (2)\t 45\n 1983 SCC  (1) 218\t  1982 SCALE  (2)1351\n\n\nACT:\n     Penal Code-Common intention-How determined.\n     Evidence  Act-Dying   declaration-Person\tmaking\t the\nstatement not  dead and\t deposed in Court-Statement if could\nbe called  dying declaration-Such  statement  if  admissible\nunder  section\t 32-Not\t quantum  of  evidence\tbut  quality\nrelevant.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The prosecution case against the 12 accused persons was\nthat, armed  with deadly weapons, they waylaid and assaulted\nthe deceased  and three\t others accompanying  him, and\tthat\nsomeone among  another\tgroup  of  12  of  their  associates\nstanding at  some distance  constantly incited\tthe  accused\nwith the  words \"kill,\tkill\". The deceased received serious\ninjuries and died on the following morning.\n     While the\tappellant was  convicted under s. 302 Indian\nPenal Code  and sentenced  to death,  ten other accused were\nconvicted  and\t sentenced  variously.\t One  of   them\t was\nacquitted.\n     On appeal\tthe High Court reduced the sentence of death\npassed\ton   the  appellant   to  imprisonment\t for   life.\nConvictions of\tfour of\t the 11\t accused were  altered\tfrom\nunder s.  302\/149 and s. 307\/149 to one under ss. 302\/34 and\n307\/34 I.P.C.  All of  them were  however acquitted  of\t the\noffences under\ts. 147\tor s. 148 I.P.C. The convictions and\nsentences against  the other  six accused were set aside and\nthey were acquitted.\n     It was contended on behalf of the appellants that their\nconviction was\tunsustainable in law because the evidence of\nthe eye witnesses, who were interested parties, could not be\nsafely relied upon.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD:  The\t  High\tCourt  erred  in  stating  that\t the\ntestimony of  the four\teye witnesses suffered from numerous\ninfirmities, that  they made improvements in their testimony\nand that  there were  variations in  their earlier and later\nstatements. On that count alone their testimony could not be\nheld to be infirm. It is the duty of the Court to remove the\ngrain from the chaff. [49 C-D]\n46\n     The parties  were inimical\t for a\tlong time.  The four\nwitnesses were\tthe injured  persons  and  therefore,  their\npresence at  the time  and place  of occurrence could not be\ndoubted. The  presence of  all the four accused in the scene\nof occurrence  and their participation in the crime had been\nproved beyond  reasonable doubt despite the improvements and\nvariations in the evidence of witnesses. [49 E-F]\n     In a  case of  this  kind\tit  is\tnot  the  number  of\nwitnesses examined  or the  quantity of\t evidence adduced by\nthe prosecution\t that counts. It is the quality that counts.\nEye witnesses,\texamined in  the  case\twere  the  best\t and\nnatural witnesses.  The accused\t persons were  known to\t the\nwitnesses and  they did not have any reason to omit the real\nculprits and  implicate falsely accused persons. [49 G-H; 50\nC]\n     A statement,  written or verbal, of relevant facts made\nby a  person who  is dead, is called a dying declaration and\nis admissible  in evidence  under s. 32 of the Evidence Act.\nBut when a person who has made a statement, even if it be in\nexpectation of\tdeath but  is not  dead, it  is not  a dying\ndeclaration. It\t is  not  admissible  under  s.\t 32  of\t the\nEvidence Act.\n\t\t\t\t\t       [50 E-F]\n     In the  instant case the two witnesses whose statements\nwere erroneously called dying declarations by the High Court\nwere alive  and deposed\t in the\t case. Such  statements\t are\nadmissible under  s. 157  of  the  Evidence  Act  as  former\nstatements made\t by them  to corroborate  their testimony in\nthe Court.\n[50 F-G]\n     Common  intention\t is  a\t question  of  fact  and  is\nsubjective. It can be inferred from facts and circumstances.\nIn the\tinstant case  the appellants who were related to one\nanother were armed with deadly weapons when they waylaid and\nattacked the  deceased and  his companions,  someone incited\nthem to \"kill\", and after the assault they left the scene of\noccurrence together  and they  were arrested  from the\tsame\nplace. There was the therefore common intention and the High\nCourt was justified in convicting them under s. 302\/34, IPC.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    [52 A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n175 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the  18th October, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in
\nCrl. Appeal Nos. 1307 and 1966 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n     Criminal Appeal Nos. 367-369 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the  judgment and order
\ndated the  18th October, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in
\nCriminal Appeal\t No. 1307 of 1973 connected with Crl. Appeal
\nNos. 1287 and 1566 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
     Rajendra Singh,  R.K. Garg\t B.P. Singh and Ranjit Kumar
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     O.P. Rana and M.V. Goswami for the Complainant.
\n     Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BAHARUL ISLAM,  J. These  four Criminal  Appeals are by
\nspecial leave.\tCriminal Appeal\t No. 175  of 1974  is by the
\nfour appellants-Maqsoodan, Madan Mohan, Prayagnath and Nando
\nwho have  been convicted  under Sections  302\/34 and  307\/34
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows:
\n     On 8 6.1972 at about 5.45 or 600 a.m, when Sulley (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
1) along  with\this  brother,  Jadon  (deceased),  his\tson,
\nRajendra (C.W.\t1) and\this nephew Vijay Kumar (P.W. 3) were
\ngoing from  their house\t in Neem  Gali,\t Mathura,  to  their
\nDharamshala in\tMohalla Bengali\t Ghat, via  Vishram Ghat and
\nreached the area called Shyam Ghat, they were waylaid by the
\ntwelve persons\taccused in  the\t case  and  were  assaulted.
\nAccording to  the  prosecution,\t the  accused  persons\twere
\nvariously armed\t with Ballams,\tphrases and  lathis. Another
\ngroup of  twelve or  thirteen persons who were associates of
\nthe accused  was standing  at Vishram  Ghat and some one was
\nconstantly inciting the accused persons with the expression,
\n“kill, kill”  whereupon the  accused  persons  attacked\t and
\nassaulted Jadon, Vijay Kumar, Rajendra and Sulley. Jadon and
\nP.W. 3\twere severely  injured. The  condition of  Jadon was
\nvery precarious.  After the  assault, the  miscreants  left.
\nP.W. 1\tarranged for a lorry belonging to one Vishnu Chaubey
\nand carried  the injured  persons to  the District Hospital.
\nThe driver of the lorry was one Than Singh. Jadon and P.W. 3
\nwere removed  to the  operation theatre.  Thereafter, P.W. 1
\nproceeded to  the Police  Station, Kotwali  at\tMathura\t and
\nsubmitted a written First Information Report (FIR) about the
\nincident. The FIR was written by his nephew, Prakash Chandra
\nChaturvedi (P.W.  8). The FIR was lodged at 6.30 a.m. at the
\nPolice Station\tand has been proved in this case as Ex. “Ka-
\n16”. After lodging the FIR, P.W. 1 came back to the hospital
\nwhere the  injuries of\tall the\t four injured  persons\twere
\nexamined by Dr. B.S. Babbar. As the condition of the injured
\npersons was  serious,  intimation  was\tsent  to  Shri\tU.C.
\nTripathi (D.W. 7), Sub-Divisional
\n48<\/span>
\nMagistrate, Sahabad,  for recording  their  statements.\t The
\nMagistrate came\t and recorded  the statements  of P.W. 3 and
\nC.W. 1\tat 9.15\t a.m. and  9.20 a.m. respectively. Jadon was
\noperated upon  and his\tcondition was such that he could not
\nmake any  statement. In\t fact, he  succumbed to the injuries
\nthe next  day, namely, 9.6.1972 at 3.25 p.m. The post-mortem
\nexamination was\t conducted on  the dead body of Jadon by Dr.
\nB.S. Babbar on 10.6.1972 at 10.00 a.m.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The  police after  investigation  submitted  charge-
\nsheet against  the  twelve  accused  persons,  all  of\twhom
\npleaded not  guilty. The  First Additional  Sessions  Judge,
\nMathura, who  tried the\t case, convicted  eleven out  of the
\ntwelve\taccused\t  persons  and\tacquitted  accused  No.\t 12,
\nKanhaiya. Appellant  Maqsoodan was  convicted under  Section
\n302 I.P.C.  and sentenced  to death.  The other\t ten accused
\npersons were  convicted under  Sections 302\/149\t and 307\/149
\nI.P.C. and  sentenced to  imprisonment for  life, each under
\nSection 302\/149\t Penal Code.  Accused Parmatma was convicted
\nunder Section  147 I.P.C.  and the rest were convicted under
\nSection 148  I.P.C. They  were sentenced to various terms of
\nimprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to
\nrun  concurrently.  There  was\talso  a\t reference  for\t the
\nconfirmation of the death sentence imposed on Maqsoodan.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The  convicts filed  several appeals before the High
\nCourt of  Allahabad. The  High Court altered the convictions
\nof Maqsoodan,  Madan Mohan, Prayagnath and Nando, from under
\nSections 302\/149  and 307\/149  to ones under Sections 302\/34
\nand 307\/34  Penal Code.\t The sentence  of death\t imposed  on
\nMaqsoodan was  reduced to imprisonment for life. All of them
\nwere acquitted\tof the offences under Section 147 or Section
\n148 I.P.C.  The convictions  and sentences  as\tagainst\t the
\nother six  accused persons  were set  aside  and  they\twere
\nacquitted. The acquittal of Kanahaiya was affirmed. Criminal
\nAppeals No.  367, 368 and 369 of 1974 have been filed by the
\nState against the acquittal of the eleven accused persons of
\nthe offences  under Sections 147 and 148, Penal Code; S.L.P.
\nNo. 766\t of 1974  is by\t the State  against the acquittal of
\nKanahaiya.\n<\/p>\n
     5. All these appeals will be disposed of by this common
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Shri  Rajendra Singh,  learned counsel appearing for
\nthe appellants\tin Criminal  Appeal No.\t 175 of\t 1974, first
\nsubmits that
\n49<\/span>
\nthe conviction\tof the\tfour appellants\t is unsustainable in
\nlaw; he\t submits that  the evidence  of the  four witnesses,
\nnamely, P.W.  1, Sulley,  C.W. 1,  Rajendra, P.W.  3,  Vijay
\nKumar and  P.W. 2,  Jagdish, cannot  form the  basis of\t the
\nconviction as only one witness, namely, P.W. 2, Jagdish, out
\nof five\t witnesses named  in the  FIR has been examined; the
\neye-witnesses examined\tare interested\tand  their  evidence
\ncannot be safely relied on.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court has found that the testimony of the eye
\nwitnesses, namely,  P.Ws 1,  2, 3  and C.W.  1 “suffer\tfrom
\nnumerous infirmities”.\tIt,  therefore,\t sought\t support  to
\ntheir testimony\t from the two earlier statements erroneously
\ncalled dying  declarations, Exhibits Ka 22 and Ka 23 made by
\nP.W. 3\tVijai Kumar  and P.W.  2 Jagdish  respectively.\t The
\ninfirmities referred  to by  the High  Court  consisted\t in,
\naccording to  the  High\t Court,\t improvements  made  by\t the
\nwitnesses  and\t variations  in\t their\tearlier\t and  latter
\nstatements. In\tour  opinion,  on  that\t ground\t alone,\t the
\ntestimony of  P.Ws. 1,\t2, 3 and C.W. 1 cannot be held to be
\ninfirm. It is the duty of the court to remove the grain from
\nthe chaff.  These four\twitnesses are  the injured witnesses
\nhaving received\t the  injuries\tduring\tthe  course  of\t the
\nincident. Their\t presence at  the  time\t and  place  of\t the
\noccurrence cannot  be doubted;\tin  fact  it  has  not\tbeen
\nchallenged by the defence. As both the parties were inimical
\nfor a  long time,  it will  be prudent to convict only those
\npersons whose  presence and  participation in the occurrence
\nhave been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
\nWe agree  with the  finding  of\t the  High  Court  that\t the
\npresence and  participation of\tappellants Maqsoodan,  Madan
\nMohan, Prayagnath  and Nando, who are appellants in Criminal
\nAppeal No.  175 of  1974 has  been proved  beyond reasonable
\ndoubt, despite\tthe improvements  and  variations  in  their
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Rajender  Singh has  submitted that it is not safe
\nto rely\t on the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and C.W. 1 as the
\nprosecution has\t not examined all the witnesses named in the
\nFIR except  Jagdish, nor has the prosecution examined any of
\nthe neighbours.\t It is\tnot the number of witnesses examined
\nnor the quantity of evidence adduced by the prosecution that
\ncounts. It  is the  quality that counts. Learned counsel has
\nnot pointed  out to  us that  any  witness  better  or\tmore
\ncreditable has\tbeen omitted  by the  prosecution. As stated
\nabove, the eye witnesses examined in this case were the best
\nand natural  witnesses. Learned\t counsel also has criticized
\nthat during the course of evidence, prosecution alleged that
\nMaqsoodan
\n50<\/span>
\ngave two  blows but  that fact was not mentioned in the FIR.
\nHe has also criticised that the injured witnesses do not say
\nwho injured  whom. This,  on the  contrary, shows  that\t the
\nwitnesses examined  were not tutored and they gave no parrot
\nlike stereotyped  evidence. It may be remembered that P.W. 1
\nwho lodged the FIR received as many as seven incised wounds,
\none of\tthem being on the left chest; he took Jadon, who had
\nreceived sd  serious injuries  and who later on succumbed lo
\nthem, and  C.W. 1,  who received  five incised\tinjuries and
\nP.W. 3,\t who has also seriously injured, to the hospital. He
\nlodged the  FIR thereafter.   The  condition of his mind and
\ndisposition can\t easily be  imagined. There were bound to be
\nsome errors  in the  FIR. It may also be remembered that the
\nFIR was\t lodged within half an hour of the occurrence. There
\nwas little  time lost.\tThe occurrence\ttook place  at about
\n6.00 a.m. on 8.6.1972 It is nobody’s case that the witnesses
\nwere unable  to recognise  the real  culprits.\tThe  accused
\npersons were  well-known to  the witnesses from before. They
\ndid not\t have any  reason to  omit  the\t real  culprits\t and
\nimplicate falsely the accused persons. The evidence of P.Ws.
\n1, 2,  3 and  C.W.1 could  have been  accepted even  without
\ncorroboration. Even  so, the High Court rightly pressed into
\nservice the  earlier statements of P.W. 3 and C.W.1 (Ex. Ka-
\n22 and Ka-23) respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     7. Exts. Ka-22 and Ka-23 have been wrongly called dying
\ndeclarations. The  statement written  or verbal, of relevant
\nfacts made  by a  person who  is dead,\tis  called  a  dying
\ndeclaration; it is relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence
\nAct, when  the statement  is made  by the  person as  to the
\ncause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the
\ntransaction which  resulted in\this death, in case, in which
\nthat person’s death comes into question.\n<\/p>\n
     When a  person who\t has made  a Statement,\t may  be  in
\nexpectation of\tdeath, is  not\tdead,  it  is  not  a  dying
\ndeclaration and\t is not\t admissible under  Section 32 of the
\nEvidence Act.  In  the\tinstant\t case,\tthe  makers  of\t the
\nstatements Ex.\tKa-22 and Ka-23, are not only alive but they
\ndeposed in  the case.  Their statements, therefore,, are not
\nadmissible under  Section 32;  but their  statements however
\nare admissible\tunder Section  157 of  the Evidence  Act  as
\nformer statements made by them in order to corroborate their
\ntestimony in  the Court.  In the instant case, Ex. Ka-22 and
\nKa-23 respectively  corroborate the  testimony in  Court  of
\nP.W. 3 and C.W. 1 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The High  Court has  found that  the witness  later  on
\nimproved the  story and\t roped in  some other  persons. As a
\nrule of
\n51<\/span>
\ncaution, the  High Court has found that the participation of
\nthe four  appellants in\t the offence  has been proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt  and the  presence and participation of the
\nother eight  accused persons  named by\tthem have  not\tbeen
\nproved\tbeyond\tdoubt.\tWe  do\tnot  find  valid  reason  to
\ninterfere with\tthis finding  of fact  of the High Court, in
\nthese appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     9.\t As  the  number  of  accused  persons\tpresent\t and
\nparticipating in  the occurrence  have not been proved to be
\nfive or\t more, the  High Court\thas rightly  held  that\t the
\ncommon\tobject\t necessary  for\t  constituting\tan  unlawful
\nassembly has not been proved, and therefore in the facts and
\ncircumstances of  the case,  the High  Court correctly\theld
\nthat common  intention has  not been  proved and as such the
\nfour appellants\t were rightly acquitted of the offence under
\nsection 302  read with\tsection 149 I.P.C., and also rightly
\nacquitted all  the other  accused persons  of  the  offences
\nunder Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Shri  Rajinder\t Singh\tnext  submits  that  if\t any
\noffence at  all has  been committed  by\t the  appellants  of
\nCriminal Appeal\t No. 175  of 1974, the offences may be under
\nSection 326  I.P.C. depending  on the  medical evidence\t and
\ncircumstances of  the case and that Section 34 I.P.C. cannot
\napply as  no common  intention has  been proved.  We  cannot
\naccept this  submission. Dr.  B.S. Babbar, P.W . 3, who held
\nthe post-mortem\t examination on the dead body of Jadon found
\na number of wounds out of which the following were serious:\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t  Incised wound 2″ x 1\/4″ x scalp deep on head.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  Incised wound 3″ x 1\/4″ x scalp deep on the head\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  Stiched wound\t with draining tube 3″ towards upper
\n\t  portion of the stomach on right side.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  Stiched wound\t 1.1\/2″ on  the upper portion of the
\n\t  left side of the stomach.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In his  opinion, death  was due  to  cyncope  following
\nshock and Haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. According
\nto him,\t injuries No.  1 &  2 separately  was sufficient  to
\ncause death in the ordinary course of nature. It, therefore,
\ncannot be argued that the offence committed was not murder.\n<\/p>\n
52<\/span><\/p>\n
     Common  intention\t is  a\t question  of  fact.  It  is
\nsubjective.  But   it  can   be\t inferred   from  facts\t and
\ncircumstances. In  this case,  the appellants  were related.
\nAll of\tthem were  armed  with\tdeadly\tweapons.  They\twere
\ntogether. There was an order by some one, “kill, kill”, when
\nall of\tthem simultaneously  attacked the deceased and P.Ws.
\n1, 2,  3, and  C.W.  1.\t After\tthe  occurrence,  they\tleft
\ntogether; they\twere later arrested from the same place. The
\nHigh Court therefore rightly held that the appellants caused
\nthe injuries with the common intention, and was justified in
\nconvicting the\tappellants under Section 302\/34 of the Penal
\nCode. We,  therefore, affirm  the conviction  and  sentences
\ninflicted by  the High\tCourt  on  Maqsoodan,  Madan  Mohan,
\nPrayagnath and\tNando, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 175
\nof 1974 and dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     11. As held above that the High Court rightly held that
\nthe prosecution\t failed\t to  prove  the\t common\t object\t and
\ntherefore it  rightly acquitted\t all the  accused persons of
\nthe offences under Sections 147 and 148.\n<\/p>\n
     12.  In   the  result,   the  State  appeals  are\talso
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P. B. R.\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n53<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 126, 1983 SCR (2) 45 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: MAQSOODAN & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [AND VICE-VERSA] DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1982 BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) BENCH: ISLAM, […]<\/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-187820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And ... on 15 December, 1982 - 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\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And ... on 15 December, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-14T10:06:15+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T10:06:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2247,\"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\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\",\"name\":\"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And ... on 15 December, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T10:06:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And ... on 15 December, 1982 - 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\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And ... on 15 December, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-14T10:06:15+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982","datePublished":"1982-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T10:06:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982"},"wordCount":2247,"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\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982","name":"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And ... on 15 December, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T10:06:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqsoodan-others-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-on-15-december-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maqsoodan & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh [And … on 15 December, 1982"}]},{"@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\/187820","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=187820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}