{"id":189520,"date":"2008-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-24T21:19:03","modified_gmt":"2017-01-24T15:49:03","slug":"ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                        1\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                           Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998\n                           Date of decision: 4.10.2008\n\n\nRam Dev\n\n                                                 ......Appellant\n\n\n                       Versus\n\n\n\nState of Haryana\n\n                                                .......Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n\n           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Mr.K.K.Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with\n           Mr.R.K.Agnihotri, Advocate,\n           for the appellants.\n\n           Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G.Haryana.\n\n                ****\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
SABINA, J.\n<\/p>\n
           This judgment would dispose of Criminal Appeals No.<\/p>\n
578-DB of 1998 and 36-DB of 1999 as both have arisen out of<\/p>\n
judgment dated 5.12.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge -I,<\/p>\n
Narnaul, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced under<\/p>\n
Sections 148, 302, 325, 323\/149 and 452 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
           Prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in<\/p>\n
para Nos. 1 and 2 of its judgment reads as under:-<\/p>\n
           “Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as emerging<\/p>\n
           out from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are that Lal<\/p>\n
           Chand (since deceased) son of Pehlad was the husband<\/p>\n
           of complainant Smt.Kanta. On 15.6.1997 at about 6.30<\/p>\n
           p.m. Lal Chand (since deceased), complainant Smt.<\/p>\n
           Kanta and their children were present at their house<\/p>\n
           situated in village Bihali. One Dholi Daughter of Jani Ram<\/p>\n
           and accused Papori @ Brahma were quarrelling with<\/p>\n
           each other.    In the meantime, Subhash who is the<\/p>\n
           husband of accused Papori @ Brahma came there and<\/p>\n
           started beating Dholi. Lal Chand intervened. Sub hash<\/p>\n
           and Papori @ Brahma left that place while abusing Lal<\/p>\n
           Chand. After some time accused Ramesh, Gugan each<\/p>\n
           armed with axe (Kulhari), Vikram, Naresh, Ramdev,<\/p>\n
           Bimla, Papori @ Brahma, Kamla, Suman wife of Naresh,<\/p>\n
           Santra, Suman daughter of Gugan, Fateh Singh each<\/p>\n
           armed with lathis and accused Subhash armed with Gulel<\/p>\n
           (a wooden danda having two horns fitted with rubber<\/p>\n
           strap to be used for throwing a stone) entered in the<\/p>\n
           house of complainant Smt.Kanta and deceased Lal<\/p>\n
           Chand, in furtherance of their common intention to cause<\/p>\n
           injuries to Lal Chand. Accused Ramesh opened attack<\/p>\n
           and caused a blow from sharp side of the axe on the
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
          forehead of Lal Chand. Accused Gugan caused an axe<\/p>\n
          blow on the nose of Lal Chand, consequently, his nose<\/p>\n
          was chopped of.    Lal Chand fell down on the ground.<\/p>\n
          Accused Vikram and Naresh caused lathi blows to him.<\/p>\n
          In the meantime, Mukhtiar the brother of Lal Chand came<\/p>\n
          there.   Mukhtiar, Ram Kishan, Dholia, Sonu and the<\/p>\n
          complainant tried to rescue Lal Chand from the clutches<\/p>\n
          of the accused persons. Accused Ramdev and Vikram<\/p>\n
          caused lathi blows on the thigh, waist and right hand of<\/p>\n
          the complainant. Accused Subhash caused a blow with<\/p>\n
          Gulel on the forehead of the complainant.       Accused<\/p>\n
          persons also caused hurt to Ram Kishan, Dholia, Sonu<\/p>\n
          and Mukhtiar. In the meantime, Ami Lal son of Hazari<\/p>\n
          and several other persons came at the spot and<\/p>\n
          witnessed the occurrence. All the accused persons took<\/p>\n
          their heels from the place of occurrence along with their<\/p>\n
          respective weapons. The complainant party also caused<\/p>\n
          some injuries to the members of the accused party, in<\/p>\n
          their defence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     The motive behind the occurrence was that<\/p>\n
          some eight or nine years ago, accused Gugan had<\/p>\n
          borrowed a sum of Rs. Twenty thousands from Lal Chand<\/p>\n
          but he did not return that amount despite repeated<\/p>\n
          demands. The another reason for causing hurt by the<\/p>\n
          accused persons to the complainant and her family
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
           members was that Lal Chand had restrained accused<\/p>\n
           Papori @ Brahma and Subhash from quarrelling with<\/p>\n
           Dholi daughter of Jani Ram, who is the uncle of deceased<\/p>\n
           Lal Chand.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Injured were removed to the hospital, in a camel cart. Lal<\/p>\n
Chand, however, succumbed to his injuries on the way to the<\/p>\n
hospital. On 16.6.1997 ASI Ram Niwas received an information from<\/p>\n
the doctor of C.H.C. Ateli with regard to arrival of dead body of Lal<\/p>\n
Chand in the hospital at about 1.30 a.m. He reached the hospital<\/p>\n
along with other police officials and met injured Ram Kishan, Dholia,<\/p>\n
Sonu and Mukhtiar. He sought information from the doctor regarding<\/p>\n
fitness of the injured. The doctor vide his opinion declared all the<\/p>\n
injured fit to make statements.         He recorded the statement of<\/p>\n
complainant Kanta and on the basis of the same formal FIR No.149<\/p>\n
dated   16.6.1997   was     recorded.    The   dead   body   was   got<\/p>\n
photographed. ASI Ram Niwas prepared the inquest report with<\/p>\n
regard to dead body and sent the same for postmortem examination.<\/p>\n
           Dr. O.P.Siroha medico legally examined Ram Kishan on<\/p>\n
16.6.1997 and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
           1. ALW wound 6×2 cm scalp deep on the middle of the<\/p>\n
             parietal regions. Bleeding was prresent and other 4×1<\/p>\n
             cm anterior.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. Crush injury on right thumb. Bleeding was present.<\/p>\n
             Parietal terminal part was amputated.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3. He was complaining of pain in chest.       Mild reddish
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
             swelling on the right side of the chest 8x 5 cm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In his opinion injuries had been caused with a blunt<\/p>\n
weapon and injury No.2 was declared grievous in nature after receipt<\/p>\n
of X-ray report, whereas, the remaining     were declared simple in<\/p>\n
nature.\n<\/p>\n
           He also examined injured Sonu at 1.35 a.m. on the same<\/p>\n
day and found following injury on his person:-<\/p>\n
           “Lacerated wound 3×2 cm on the lower lip.            Teeth<\/p>\n
           missing. Bleeding from the gum was present.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In his opinion, kind of weapon used was blunt and the<\/p>\n
injury on the person of Sonu was declared as grievous in nature.<\/p>\n
           On the same day at 1.55 a.m. he medico legally<\/p>\n
examined Dholia and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
           1. A reddish contusion 5 x 3 cm on the right fore-arm<\/p>\n
             upper third.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. He was complaining of pain in the right hand’s fingers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3. He was complaining of pain in chest and the reddish<\/p>\n
             contusion on the left shoulder joint and scapular region<\/p>\n
             left side.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           4. (a) A lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the upper part of<\/p>\n
             occeput.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           5. (b) An abraded reddish contusion 3 x 3 cm on the left<\/p>\n
             parietal region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In his opinion injuries had been caused with a blunt<\/p>\n
weapon. All the injuries were declared simple in nature.
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
           He medico legally examined injured Mukhtiar on the same<\/p>\n
day at 2.05 a.m. and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. There was a reddish swelling on the dorsum of the left<\/p>\n
              hand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. A reddish contusion 10x 5 cm on the right thigh.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In his opinion the injuries had been caused with a blunt<\/p>\n
weapon and both the injuries were declared simple in nature.<\/p>\n
           On the same day he medico legally examined Kanta and<\/p>\n
found following injuries on her person:-\n<\/p>\n
            1. There was a reddish contusion 2 x 1 cm on the left<\/p>\n
              thumb, she was complaining of pain.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. An abraded reddish contusion 1 x 1 cm and lacerated<\/p>\n
              wound \u00bd cm x 1\/2 cm on the right side of the forehead.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3. A contusion 8x 5 cm on the left thigh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4. A reddish contusion on the right middle finger and was<\/p>\n
              complaining of pain in the right hand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In his opinion the kind of weapon used was blunt and all<\/p>\n
the injuries were declared simple in nature.<\/p>\n
           Dr.Alok Jain conducted the postmortem examination on<\/p>\n
the dead body of Lal Chand on 16.6.1997 and found following<\/p>\n
injuries on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
            1. Scull box was broken open at frontal area brain tissues<\/p>\n
              bulging out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Lacerated wound right parietal area.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3. Nose tip chapped off.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4. Right ear lib lacerated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Walls of the thorax, ribs and abdomen were seen and<\/p>\n
              he found abrasions on the walls of the thorax.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The cause of death in this case was due to brain tissue<\/p>\n
injuries and shock which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary<\/p>\n
course of nature and it was ante mortem in nature.<\/p>\n
           ASI Ram Niwas visited the spot on 16.6.1997. He got the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence photographed and prepared the rough site plan.<\/p>\n
He also lifted blood stained earth from the spot.              He arrested<\/p>\n
accused Gugan, Vikram, Naresh, Papori @ Brahma, Bimla, Ram<\/p>\n
Dev and Fateh Singh. At the time of arrest accused Gugan produced<\/p>\n
an axe, accused Vikram produced Lathi, Accused Naresh and Fateh<\/p>\n
Singh produced dandas.       All the said weapons were taken in<\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n
           On 21.6.1997, accused Santra, Suman d\/o Gugan,<\/p>\n
Kamla, Suman w\/o Naresh and Subhash were arrested. Accused<\/p>\n
Santra produced lathi, whereas, accused Subhash produced gulel<\/p>\n
and the same were taken in possession.            Accused Ramesh was<\/p>\n
arrested on 29.6.1997 and during interrogation he suffered a<\/p>\n
disclosure statement and got recovered an axe on the basis of the<\/p>\n
said statement. On 30.7.1997, a scaled site plan was got prepared<\/p>\n
with regard to place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
           After   completion    of      investigation   and       necessary<\/p>\n
formalities accused were sent up for trial. Charge against them was<\/p>\n
framed under Sections 148, 302, 325, 323\/149 and 452 IPC on
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
17.2.1998. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
           Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 17
\nwitnesses at the trial. After close of prosecution evidence accused,
\nGugan when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
           “I am innocent. It is a false case. I have been wrongly<\/p>\n
           involved in this case. That on 15.6.1997 at about 9.00<\/p>\n
           p.m. Ramesh came back after selling the vegetables on<\/p>\n
           his camel-cart. When he was tethering his camel in the<\/p>\n
           fields of Balbir son of Hira Lal, which is situated in front of<\/p>\n
           the house of Lal Chand (since deceased), Lal Chand<\/p>\n
           objected the tethering the camel because it causes<\/p>\n
           nuisance. After tether his camel in the fields of Balbir,<\/p>\n
           when he was coming to the house, Lal Chand (since<\/p>\n
           deceased), Mukhtiar, Ram Kishan, Dholia, Bhoopan<\/p>\n
           armed with lathis, encircled Ramesh and open an attack<\/p>\n
           on him with their respective weapons. Lal Chand gave a<\/p>\n
           lathi blow on the forehead of Ramesh, Mukhtiar gave a<\/p>\n
           lathi blow on his left cheek, Ram Kishan gave a lathi blow<\/p>\n
           on the left parietal, Dholia gave a lathi blow on the left<\/p>\n
           side of his back, Bhoopan gave a lathi blow on his head.<\/p>\n
           On hearing the noise of Ramesh, myself, Vikram, Naresh,<\/p>\n
           Brahma and Bimla also reached the spot to rescue<\/p>\n
           Ramesh and when they tried to rescue Ramesh, Ram<\/p>\n
           Kishan gave two lathi blows on the back of Vikram,<\/p>\n
           Mukhtiar gave a lathi blow on the head of Vikram
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
          with intent to kill him, which was declared grievous. Lal<\/p>\n
          Chand since deceased gave a lathi blow on my head.<\/p>\n
          Ram Kishan also gave a lathi blow on my chest, Dholia<\/p>\n
          gave a lathi blow on my back, Mukhtiar gave a lathi blow<\/p>\n
          on my left shoulder, Ram Kishan gave a lathi blow on the<\/p>\n
          right thumb of Naresh, Dholia gave a lathi blow on the left<\/p>\n
          arm of Naresh. Mukhtiar gave a lathi blow on the left arm<\/p>\n
          of Naresh. Bhoopan gave a lathi blow on the head of<\/p>\n
          Brahma, Mukhtiar gave a lathi blow on the belly of Brhma.<\/p>\n
          Ram Kishan gave a lathi blow on the forehead of Bimla,<\/p>\n
          Dholia gave a lathi blow on the chest of Bimla, Mukhtiar<\/p>\n
          gave a lathi blow on the left arm of Bimla.           This<\/p>\n
          occurrence had taken place in the village path which is<\/p>\n
          situated between the house of Lal Chand and field of<\/p>\n
          Balbir Singh. This occurrence was witnessed by Bodan<\/p>\n
          son of Chand Ram, resident of Bihali and Phoolchand<\/p>\n
          son of Kishan Lal, resident of Antri.       Ramdev, Suman<\/p>\n
          daughter of Gugan, Suman wife of Naresh, Santra wife of<\/p>\n
          Gugan, Kamla wife of Ramesh, Subhash and Fateh Singh<\/p>\n
          were not present at that time.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Similar plea was taken by the other accused. Accused<\/p>\n
examined Dr.O.P.Siroha (DW-4)     in their defence.<\/p>\n
          Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution version so<\/p>\n
far as accused Ram Dev, Gugan, Vikram, Naresh, Ramesh,<\/p>\n
Subhash, Papori @ Brahma and Bimla are concerned and convicted
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
and sentenced them under Sections 148, 302, 325, 323\/149 and 452<\/p>\n
IPC. Accused Fateh Singh, Suman d\/o Gugan, Santra, Kamla and<\/p>\n
Suman w\/o Naresh were acquitted of the charge framed against<\/p>\n
them. Hence, the present two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
             In appeal, it has been argued that the prosecution had<\/p>\n
miserably failed to prove its case. Accused Ramesh, Gugan, Papori<\/p>\n
@ Brahma, Bimla and Vikram had also suffered injuries in the<\/p>\n
alleged occurrence.    So far as injury on the person of Vikram is<\/p>\n
concerned, the same as per the doctor (DW-1) could be dangerous<\/p>\n
to the life. The accused party had inflicted injuries on the person of<\/p>\n
the complainant party in self defence. Accused had no intention to<\/p>\n
commit murder of deceased Lal Chand.           Houses of Lal Chand<\/p>\n
deceased and Gugan adjoin each other. The occurrence, in fact,<\/p>\n
had taken place in the street and the complainant party was the<\/p>\n
aggressor.    Prosecution had failed to prove any motive with the<\/p>\n
accused party to commit murder of deceased Lal Chand.<\/p>\n
             Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued<\/p>\n
that all the accused had come to the house of Lal Chand armed with<\/p>\n
deadly weapons and had inflicted injuries on the person of the<\/p>\n
deceased as well as other injured. From the nature of injury No.1 on<\/p>\n
the person of deceased Lal Chand, it was evident that all the<\/p>\n
accused had intention to commit his murder .\n<\/p>\n
             Present case rests on an eye witness account.<\/p>\n
             Kanta (PW-1), Mukhtiar (PW-14)     and Dholia (PW-15)<\/p>\n
have deposed with regard to manner of occurrence. As per the eye
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
witness account, accused Gugan and Ramesh had come to the spot<\/p>\n
armed with kulharis (axe), whereas, remaining accused had come to<\/p>\n
the spot armed with lathis. Accused Ramesh opened the attack by<\/p>\n
inflicting injuries with kulhari on the head of Lal Chand and,<\/p>\n
thereafter, accused Gugan        gave a kulhari blow on his nose.<\/p>\n
Mukhtiar (PW-14) and Dholia (PW-15) have deposed that accused<\/p>\n
Vikram and Naresh gave lathi blows on the head and near the ear of<\/p>\n
Lal Chand. Initially in the FIR Kanta (PW-1) had stated that accused<\/p>\n
Vikram and Naresh had inflicted lathi blows on the person of her<\/p>\n
huaband, whereas, while appearing in the witness box, she deposed<\/p>\n
that accused Vikram and Ram Dev gave lathi blows on the person of<\/p>\n
her husband.    She was duly confronted with this fact during her<\/p>\n
cross-examination.      Keeping in view the testimony of PW-14 and<\/p>\n
PW-15 and the initial statement of PW-1 with the police, it transpires<\/p>\n
that accused Vikram and Naresh had inflicted injuries on the person<\/p>\n
of the deceased with their respective lathis. Injured Kanta, Ram<\/p>\n
Kishan, Dholia, Sonu and Mukesh also suffered injuries at the hands<\/p>\n
of the accused party.\n<\/p>\n
           From a perusal of      site plan (Exhibit PK) prepared by<\/p>\n
draftsman and Exhibit EA\/4 prepared by the Investigating Officer , it<\/p>\n
appears that the occurrence had taken place in the house of<\/p>\n
deceased Lal Chand. Exhibit PO is the recovery memo, vide which<\/p>\n
blood stained earth was lifted from the spot. A perusal of the same<\/p>\n
reveals that the blood stained earth was lifted from the chowk near<\/p>\n
the chappar at the Eastern-Southern side of the house of deceased
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
Lal Chand.       This leads to the inference that the occurrence had<\/p>\n
started in the street and not in the house of the deceased as alleged<\/p>\n
by the prosecution. Occurrence in this case is admitted but Exhibit<\/p>\n
PO makes the ocular version doubtful with regard to place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. Whenever a doubt is created in the prosecution case,<\/p>\n
benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused.         Hence,<\/p>\n
possibility of    the occurrence, in fact, having been started in the<\/p>\n
street cannot be ruled out. The outer wall of the house of Lal Chand<\/p>\n
is not very high and the possibility that after the occurrence started,<\/p>\n
the parties moved into the house of Lal Chand can also not be ruled<\/p>\n
out.\n<\/p>\n
            Motive put forth by the prosecution for commission of<\/p>\n
offence of murder appears to be too fragile. It has been alleged that<\/p>\n
eight or nine years prior to the occurrence Lal Chand had lent<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- to Gugan but the same had not been returned back.<\/p>\n
There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any civil<\/p>\n
litigation pending between the parties with regard to the said loan.<\/p>\n
There is also nothing on record to suggest that the parties, who were<\/p>\n
neighbours, had quarrelled with each other on an earlier occasion<\/p>\n
except on 15.6.1997 at 6.30 p.m. i.e. a day prior to the occurrence.<\/p>\n
Even the said occurrence was trivial in nature. Dholi d\/o Jani Ram<\/p>\n
(brother of deceased’s father) and Papori d\/o Gugan had quarrelled<\/p>\n
with each other and Lal Chand had rescued Dholi. This, in itself<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be a sufficient motive for the accused party to<\/p>\n
commit murder of deceased Lal Chand.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
           It appears that both the parties, who were residing in the<\/p>\n
houses adjoining each other, met in the street. They were allegedly<\/p>\n
armed with weapons and without any pre meditation, in a sudden<\/p>\n
fight, inflicted injuries on each other.   Accused Ramesh, Gugan,<\/p>\n
Papori, Bimla and Vikram had also suffered injuries in the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence. The said injured were duly examined by Dr.O.P.Siroha<\/p>\n
(DW-1), who deposed that on 16.6.1997 at about 2.35 a.m. he<\/p>\n
medico legally examined Ramesh and found following injuries on his<\/p>\n
person:-\n<\/p>\n
           1. There was a lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm bone deep<\/p>\n
              on the forehead above and left eyebrow.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2. There was a lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the left<\/p>\n
              cheek.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3. There was a lacerated wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm scalp<\/p>\n
              deep on the left parietal region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           4. Complaining of pain on the left side of the back of the<\/p>\n
              chest 5 cm x 1cm<\/p>\n
           On the same day he also examined injured Gugan and<\/p>\n
found following injuries on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
           1. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm scalp deep was<\/p>\n
              present on the right parietal eminence.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2. He was complaining of pain chest, anterior aspect of<\/p>\n
              the chest, there was contusion 10 cm x 5 cm on the<\/p>\n
              right pectoral region and 5 cm x 3 cm on the left<\/p>\n
              scapular region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
           On the same day at 3.10 a.m. he medico legally<\/p>\n
examined Vikram and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
           1. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm scalp deep on the left<\/p>\n
             side of the upper part of occipit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. Multiple abraded reddish contusion 8 cm x 2 cm, 5 cmx<\/p>\n
             3 cm on the right side of the back of the chest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the same day he medico legally examined Brahma<\/p>\n
and found following injuries on her person:-<\/p>\n
           1. An abraded contusion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the frontal part<\/p>\n
             of the left side of scalp.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. She was complaining of pain in abdomen, pregnant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the same day at about 3.30 a.m. he medico legally<\/p>\n
examined Bimla and found following injuries on her person:-<\/p>\n
           1. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the right parietal<\/p>\n
             region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. An abraded reddish contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the<\/p>\n
             middle of the forehead.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3. Multiple abraded reddish contusion 3 cm x 2 cm, 1 cm<\/p>\n
             x 1 cm, \u00bdcm x \u00bd cm on the chest and she was<\/p>\n
             complaining of pain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In his opinion injuries of all the persons had been inflicted<\/p>\n
with blunt weapons.     Injuries on the person of Ramesh, Gugan,<\/p>\n
Naresh, Vikram, Brahma and Bimla were neither superficial nor self<\/p>\n
suffered. Possibility of injury No.1 on the person of Vikram being<\/p>\n
dangerous to life could not be ruled out. The said injury was a
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
depressed fracture of posterior parietal region of skull.<\/p>\n
           Both the parties had suffered injuries in the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence and the possibility is there that the said fight started in<\/p>\n
the street and it leads to the inference that it was a case of a sudden<\/p>\n
fight.\n<\/p>\n
           It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what<\/p>\n
shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and<\/p>\n
whether a quarrel is sudden fight or not must necessarily depend<\/p>\n
upon the proved facts of each case. The cause of quarrel is not<\/p>\n
relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the<\/p>\n
fight. A ‘sudden fight’ implies mutual provocation and blows on each<\/p>\n
side. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A<\/p>\n
fight suddenly takes place for which both the parties are more of less<\/p>\n
to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had<\/p>\n
not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the<\/p>\n
serious turn it did.       There is then mutual provocation and<\/p>\n
aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which<\/p>\n
attaches to each fighter. It is immaterial, who gave the first blow. It<\/p>\n
further has to be established that the offender had not taken undue<\/p>\n
advantage and had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.<\/p>\n
           In the present case the deceased had suffered four<\/p>\n
injuries. As per Dr.Alok Jain (PW-8) injuries No. 2,3 and 4 could not<\/p>\n
be the cause for death of Lal Chand. Injuries No. 2 and 4 were<\/p>\n
superficial in nature. Hence, the cause of death was injury No.1,<\/p>\n
which was on the head of deceased and is attributed to accused
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
Ramesh.     The fact that only one injury was inflicted by accused<\/p>\n
Ramesh leads to the inference that he had not taken undue<\/p>\n
advantage nor it acted in a cruel manner. While inflicting the said<\/p>\n
injury, accused Ramesh had no intention of causing death of Lal<\/p>\n
Chand but he had the knowledge that the said injury could very well<\/p>\n
result in the death of deceased. Accused Ramesh is, thus, liable to<\/p>\n
be convicted for an offence under Section 304 (II) IPC and not under<\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC. Offences under Sections 148 and 452 IPC are also<\/p>\n
not made out in this case, as it was a case of sudden fight and the<\/p>\n
possibility of its having been started in the street cannot be ruled out.<\/p>\n
            Accordingly, both     the appeals     are partly allowed.<\/p>\n
Conviction of appellant Ramesh is converted from under Section 302<\/p>\n
IPC to Section 304 (II) IPC and his sentence is reduced to rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
            It was stated by learned counsel for the parties that<\/p>\n
appellant Gugan and Vikram had since died and, hence, appeal qua<\/p>\n
them is disposed of as abated.\n<\/p>\n
            All the accused are acquitted of the charge framed<\/p>\n
against them under Sections 148 and 452 IPC. So far as charge<\/p>\n
under Section 325 IPC framed against the accused is concerned,<\/p>\n
from the statements of the eye witnesses it cannot be specifically pin<\/p>\n
pointed as to which of the appellant is liable for causing grievous<\/p>\n
injuries to Sonu and Ram Kishan. As such, conviction of any of the<\/p>\n
accused under Section 325 IPC cannot be passed. Accused Ram<\/p>\n
Dev, Naresh, Subhash, Papori @ Brahma and Bimla had caused
\n Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
simple injuries on the person of the complainant party with their<\/p>\n
respective weapons. Accordingly, they are convicted under Section<\/p>\n
323 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
one year.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (SABINA)
\n                                                 JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                          (JASBIR SINGH)
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
October 04, 2008
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.578 DB of 1998 Date of decision: 4.10.2008 Ram Dev ……Appellant Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-24T15:49:03+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-24T15:49:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3759,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-24T15:49:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-24T15:49:03+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-24T15:49:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008"},"wordCount":3759,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008","name":"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-24T15:49:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-dev-vs-state-of-haryana-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Dev vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189520","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=189520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}