{"id":191004,"date":"2001-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001"},"modified":"2017-03-18T07:57:54","modified_gmt":"2017-03-18T02:27:54","slug":"ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001","title":{"rendered":"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. A.S. C.J, R.C. Lahoti, Sh1Varaj V. Patil<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  464 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nRONAL KIPRONO RAMKAT\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nDR. A.S. ANAND C.J &amp; R.C. LAHOTI &amp; SH1VARAJ V. PATIL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2001 Supp(1) SCR 65<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal by special leave, is aggrieved by and<br \/>\ndirected against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and<br \/>\nHaryana dated 4.9.1997, upholding the order of conviction and sentence<br \/>\npassed on the appellant by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, for the<br \/>\noffences under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and for an offence<br \/>\nunder Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial is<br \/>\nthat at about 1.30 P.M. on 17.11.1993, Betty, the deceased, informed her<br \/>\nfriend Caroline (Pw-4) that Ramkat Ronald (the accused), the appellant, who<br \/>\nwas Betty&#8217;s friend, wanted her to see him at his house No. 823, Sector 2,<br \/>\nPanchkula. Accordingly Betty went to the said house. At about 2.30 P.M.,<br \/>\nCaroline informed Elisha Siele (PW-5), Betty&#8217;s brother that his sister had<br \/>\nbeen stabbed in house No. 823, Sector 2, Panchkula. She did not inform who<br \/>\ngave that information to her. PW-5 then rushed to the place and found the<br \/>\nappellant and the deceased lying in a pool of blood and that Betty managed<br \/>\nto tell him that the accused had tried to rape her and on her resistance,<br \/>\nhe had stabbed her on the neck and head with a kitchen knife. PW-5<br \/>\nalongwith Kennith put Betty in a Maruti Car and rushed her to the<br \/>\nGovernment hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. The doctor found Betty in a<br \/>\nserious condition and referred her to the P.G.I. Hospital, Chandigarh,<br \/>\nwhere she was found to be dead on arrival. ASI Pale Ram (PW-10) reached<br \/>\nP.G.I. Chandigarh and took the report (Exbt.P-E) from the PW-5 at 7.00 P.M.<br \/>\nwhich formed the basis of formal first information report registered at<br \/>\n7.30 P.M. in the police station, Panchkula for the offences under Section<br \/>\n376 read with Sections 511 and 302 of the IPC. The case was investigated by<br \/>\nInspector Kanhiya Lal (PW-11) and charge-sheet was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the<br \/>\noffences already mentioned above and passed consequent sentence on him. The<br \/>\nappellant failed before the High Court in the appeal filed by him. Hence,<br \/>\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court as<br \/>\nwell as the High Court have concurrently and manifestly erred in holding<br \/>\nthe appellant guilty. The so-called dying declaration said to have been<br \/>\nmade by the deceased could not be accepted as truthful for several reasons.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Beside, material<br \/>\nwitnesses also were not examined. We were taken through the evidence in<br \/>\nsupport of these submissions. The learned counsel for the State made<br \/>\nsubmissions supporting the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n<p>There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution, to support its<br \/>\ncase mainly relied on the oral dying declaration said to have been made by<br \/>\nthe deceased to PW-5 and the evidence of PWs 4-5. The defence of the<br \/>\nappellant was that the deceased and he were friends and they had love<br \/>\naffair among them. The deceased came to his house on that fateful day. Some<br \/>\nunknown person came and assaulted the deceased and in the process to save<br \/>\nher he was also assaulted and suffered injuries. According to him, Betty<br \/>\ndied on the spont itself. PW-5 was not tolerant of the love affair between<br \/>\nhim and the deceased and that a false case was foisted against him after<br \/>\ndue deliberation and consultation.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are conscious if dying declaration passes the test of reliability and<br \/>\ntruthfulness it can form basis of conviction even without further<br \/>\ncorroboration. But in the case on hand, after examining the during<br \/>\ndeclaration in all its aspects, having due regard to surrounding<br \/>\ncircumstances, we find it unreliable as it suffers from number of<br \/>\ninfirmities stated hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>PW-5 was the first informant, who gave report Exh. P-E in which it is<br \/>\nstated that on 17.11.1983 Betty informed PW-4, her friend, that the<br \/>\nappellant wanted to see her (deceased) briefly. The deceased left alone at<br \/>\nabout 1.30 P.M. to House No. 823, Sector 2, Panchkula, where the appellant<br \/>\nhas been staying. On the contrary both PW-4 and PW-5 in their evidence<br \/>\nstated that the deceased went to the house of the appellant of her own<br \/>\naccord to say goodbye to him. This changes the complexion of the entire<br \/>\ncase. PW-5 stated that PW-4 informed him at about 2.30 P.M. on 17.11.1993<br \/>\nthat she had received information that the deceased had been stabbed in<br \/>\nhouse No. 823 but the name of the informant was not given. PW-4 in her<br \/>\nevidence stated that one Petric informed her about the incident. Apart from<br \/>\nthis contradiction the said Petric was also not examined. PW-5 stated that<br \/>\non getting information from PW-4 he along with Kennith went to the house of<br \/>\nthe appellant and found the deceased in a naked condition lying in a pool<br \/>\nof blood on the floor in the corridor of the room, which was in the<br \/>\noccupation of the appellant. He himself and Kenith took the deceased in a<br \/>\nnearby Maruti car. The said Kennith has also not been examined. There is<br \/>\none other disturbing feature. From the perusal of Exh. P-E, the complaint<br \/>\ngiven by PW-5, it is clear that the last words, that the appellant had also<br \/>\ntried to commit suicide by stabbing himself in the stomach, appears to have<br \/>\nbeen inserted later, in the space between the lines when compared with the<br \/>\nrest of the document. The High Court also found it so but lightly brushed<br \/>\naside this infirmity saying &#8220;it cannot be concluded as after thought and<br \/>\nadded later on as there are similar additions in other parts of the<br \/>\ndocument as well&#8221;. It is stated in Exh. P-E that &#8220;Betty managed to tell me<br \/>\nthat Ramkat tried to rape her but she refused, so Ramkat stripped and<br \/>\nstabbed her with kitchen knife on neck and head&#8221;. After giving the details<br \/>\nin the last but one paragraph of Exh. P-E it is stated, &#8220;She died due to<br \/>\ndeep head injuries caused by Ramkat. Ramkat also tried to kill himself<br \/>\nstabbing on the stomach&#8221;. This portion of the statement appears to be the<br \/>\nassessment of PW-5 and not a part of dying declaration. Ramkat tried to<br \/>\nkill himself by stabbing by knife on the stomach are also additions made in<br \/>\nExt. P-E as already stated above. In the absence of explanation as to the<br \/>\nserious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant giving rise to<br \/>\nserious doubt as to the very genesis of the incident, the said portion of<br \/>\nthe statement appears to have been inserted after deliberation and<br \/>\nconsultation. This insertion probabilises the defence version that the<br \/>\nappellant and the deceased were in love. The very fact that the deceased<br \/>\nwas totally naked and underclothes of both the deceased and the appellant<br \/>\nwere found in the same room probabilises the theory of inter-course by<br \/>\nconsent and negatives the story of rape. PW-5 did not tolerate his sister<br \/>\nhaving sex with Ramkat and that might have lead to an attack on both of<br \/>\nthem on that day.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dr. Deepak Bakshi (PW-8), who examined the appellant, found several serious<br \/>\nincised wounds on him including the one on the right interior superior<br \/>\niliac spine in the right lumber region. Looking to the seriousness,<br \/>\nlocation and nature of injuries, in particular, the incised wound in the<br \/>\nlumber region, it could not be said that they could be self-inflicted<br \/>\ninjuries. It is in the evidence of PW-5 that the appellant tried to kill<br \/>\nhimself by jumping from the upper floor. The doctor, of course, says that<br \/>\nthe possibility of injury Nos. 6 and 7 found on the appellant could not be<br \/>\nruled out by fall from upper floor. It is difficult to believe how the<br \/>\nappellant with several serious injuries could walk to the upper floor and<br \/>\njump from there and that apart in the earliest version given in the Exh. P-<br \/>\nE there is no mention about the appellant&#8217;s jumping from the upper floor.<br \/>\nIn view of the injuries found on the deceased and the defence taken by the<br \/>\nappellant that she died on the spot and in the absence of any other<br \/>\nevidence except the statement of PW-5 it is difficult to accept that the<br \/>\ndeceased was alive or at any rate she was in a position to make the<br \/>\nstatement to PW-5 as sought to be made out. The theory that the appellant<br \/>\ntried to kill himself does not appear to be probable as both PW-4 and PW-5<br \/>\nadmitted that the deceased and the appellant knew each other; the deceased<br \/>\nvoluntarily went to the house of the appellant to say goodbye, since she<br \/>\nwas going back to her country. PW-4 did state before the police that the<br \/>\nappellant and the deceased had love affair, however, she denied this in the<br \/>\ncourt in her deposition having made such a statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this background it appears improbable that the appellant forcefully<br \/>\ntried to rape the deceased. It appears that both the appellant and the<br \/>\ndeceased may have been in a compromising position and were surprised and<br \/>\nattacked by an assailant. Since the injuries found on the appellant could<br \/>\nnot be said to be self-inflicted, as already noticed above, his defence,<br \/>\nthat he sustained injuries at the hands of unknown person when he tried to<br \/>\nsave the deceased, appears to be probable. The trial court expected the<br \/>\nappellant to establish his defence by the same standard that the<br \/>\nprosecution should establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable<br \/>\ndoubt. It was enough to show that the defence was probable in the given<br \/>\ncircumstances. In this case the defence statement is probabilised by the<br \/>\nsurrounding circumstances and the evidence brought on record. The so-called<br \/>\ndying declaration does not appear to be in the words of the deceased. It<br \/>\ndoes not inspire confidence. There was considerable delay in registering<br \/>\nthe FIR and the explanation given for the delay is not convincing. The<br \/>\nincident took place between 1.30 to 2.30 P.M. and FIR reaches the<br \/>\njurisdictional Magistrate at the same place at 10.00 P.M. Further, except<br \/>\nthe interested statement of PW-5 there is no other evidence to corroborate<br \/>\nthe dying declaration. The material witnesses Petric and Kennith, named<br \/>\nabove, who could have thrown light in this regard, were also not examined<br \/>\nfor reasons but known to the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having regard to all these infirmities, improbabilities and contradictions<br \/>\nfound in the case we are of the view that it is unsafe to act upon the said<br \/>\ndying declaration. In view of what is stated above the impugned judgment<br \/>\nand order does call for interference. Hence the appeal is allowed. The<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellant shall be set at<br \/>\nliberty forthwith if not required in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 Bench: Dr. A.S. C.J, R.C. Lahoti, Sh1Varaj V. Patil CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 464 of 1999 PETITIONER: RONAL KIPRONO RAMKAT RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/2001 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND C.J &amp; R.C. LAHOTI &amp; SH1VARAJ V. PATIL [&hellip;]<\/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-191004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-18T02:27:54+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-18T02:27:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1828,\"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\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\",\"name\":\"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-18T02:27:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-18T02:27:54+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001","datePublished":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-18T02:27:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001"},"wordCount":1828,"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\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001","name":"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-18T02:27:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ronal-kiprono-ramkat-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ronal Kiprono Ramkat vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2001"}]},{"@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\/191004","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=191004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}