{"id":191017,"date":"2010-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-04T20:51:59","modified_gmt":"2017-06-04T15:21:59","slug":"munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                        1\n\n                       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,\n                          PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR\n\n\n                  SB:       HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA\n\n                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.631\/1994\n\n                                          Munna and others.\n\n                                                       Vs.\n\n                                    State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n...................................................................................................................\nShri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants.\nShri J.K.Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the State.\n...................................................................................................................\nDate of hearing :                   21.05.2010\nDate of judgment :                  01.07.2010\n...................................................................................................................\n\n                                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                 All the six appellants have preferred this appeal challenging<\/p>\n
their conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Raisen in ST No.128\/92 decided on 15\/6\/1994.<\/p>\n
2.               All the appellants except appellant Munna are convicted for<\/p>\n
offence under Sections 147, 307 read with Sections 149 and 342 of IPC<\/p>\n
and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, 3 years and 3<\/p>\n
months respectively, whereas appellant Munna has been convicted for<\/p>\n
offence under Sections 148, 307 and 342 of IPC and sentenced to<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, 3 years and 3 months respectively.<\/p>\n
3.               During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Prakash was<\/p>\n
found missing since last 12 years and therefore it is presumed under<\/p>\n
Section 108 of Evidence Act that he is no more and vide order dated<\/p>\n
5\/4\/2010 his appeal has been dismissed as deemed to have been
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
abated.\n<\/p>\n
4.         According to the prosecution, on 2\/3\/1991 at about 3:00 AM<\/p>\n
in the morning, complainant Hari Narayan (PW-5) was sleeping with<\/p>\n
his brother Kashiram (PW-6) in his field situated in the territory of<\/p>\n
Village Mankapur. At about 3:00 AM in the morning all the appellants<\/p>\n
and one Gambhir came to the field and took the complainant Hari<\/p>\n
Narayan to the house of Prakash. They forced some cloth upon his<\/p>\n
mouth to avoid shouting. In the house of Prakash, accused Prakash,<\/p>\n
Gambhir and Prahlad held the complainant and accused Munna gave<\/p>\n
two blows of axe over the head and back of Hari Narayan. Accused<\/p>\n
Hakim , Sitaram and Ratiram had also assaulted him by hands.<\/p>\n
Complainant Hari Narayan was confined in the room till the morning.<\/p>\n
At about 12 O’clock witness Sukhram (PW-10) and Chowkidar Dammu<\/p>\n
came to the room and contacted the complainant Hari Narayan, who<\/p>\n
informed the entire incident to them. They took him to the Police<\/p>\n
Station in a bullock cart. Hari Narayan lodged an FIR Ex.P-9 in Police<\/p>\n
Station Silwani at about 4:45 PM. Police had sent the complainant for<\/p>\n
his medical examination. Dr. S.K.Singhai in his report Ex.P-13 has<\/p>\n
found that the complainant had four incised wounds at left parietal<\/p>\n
region, left shoulder, left scapular region and right lumbar area. In his<\/p>\n
opinion, injuries of scapular and left shoulder were grievous and other<\/p>\n
injuries were simple in nature. All the injuries could be caused by sharp<\/p>\n
cutting instrument. Station House Officer Shri Rajiv Vyas (PW-11) on<\/p>\n
investigation had seized blood stained earth, plane earth and blood<\/p>\n
stained pillow from the spot and prepared a seizure memo Ex.P-8.
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
Similarly he had seized an axe from accused Munna from his house for<\/p>\n
which accused Munna had given information under Section 27 of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act. The seized property was directed to forensic science<\/p>\n
examination. After due investigation police filed challan (charge sheet)<\/p>\n
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Silwani, who committed the case<\/p>\n
to the Sessions Court, Raisen vide order dated 8\/5\/1992. The Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Raisen transferred the case to First Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Raisen. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.<\/p>\n
5.         The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of<\/p>\n
evidence of complainant Hari Narayan (PW-5), Kashiram (PW-6),<\/p>\n
Hargovind (PW-7), Aman Singh (PW-8) and Sukhram (PW-10) and the<\/p>\n
corroboration with FIR and medical report found that the appellants<\/p>\n
had made an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common<\/p>\n
object accused Munna attempted to murder the complainant Hari<\/p>\n
Narayan.   It   was   further   found    that   the   appellants   confined<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan in the house of Prakash. Accused Munna<\/p>\n
had deadly weapons with him and therefore learned Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Raisen, convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para<\/p>\n
2 of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
6.         Heard both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
7.         Complainant Hari Narayan (PW-5) has stated in the trial<\/p>\n
Court that all the accused came to the field where he was sleeping with<\/p>\n
his brother Kashiram (PW-6) and took him to the residence of accused<\/p>\n
Prakash. In the room some of the accused has held the hands etc. of<\/p>\n
the complainant whereas accused Munna gave 2-3 axe blows over the
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
head and back of the complainant. He has also stated that accused<\/p>\n
Hakim gave him some slaps whereas accused Sitaram kicked him by<\/p>\n
shoes. He has further stated that he remained unconscious till 6 AM in<\/p>\n
the morning. When Dammu came to the spot, the complainant told him<\/p>\n
about the incident. Thereafter Dammu @ Hargovind (PW-7) brought<\/p>\n
the witness Sukhram (PW-10) and ultimately Sukhram (PW-10) and<\/p>\n
Hargovind (PW-7) took him to the Police Station Silwani in a bullock-<\/p>\n
cart.\n<\/p>\n
8.         Witnesses Kashiram (PW-6), brother of complainant and<\/p>\n
Aman Singh (PW-8), father of complainant, have stated that Kashiram<\/p>\n
came in the night to inform Aman Singh that the accused took the<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan. Kashiram again reached to the spot and<\/p>\n
saw the incident and again informed his father regarding the incident<\/p>\n
where Aman Singh did not confirm the evidence of Kashiram that he<\/p>\n
saw the incident. However, Aman Singh has stated that in the early<\/p>\n
morning he went to the Police Station Silwani where he was directed to<\/p>\n
go and search his son and ultimately he again went to the Police<\/p>\n
Station with Chowkidar Hargovind and Sukhram, who took the<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan to the Police Station. But such statement of<\/p>\n
Aman Singh was missing in his case diary statement Ex.D-3. It is clear<\/p>\n
that neither Kashiram visited his house in the night nor Aman Singh<\/p>\n
went to the Police Station Silwani in the early morning. For the sake of<\/p>\n
argument, if it is presumed that Kashiram went to inform Aman Singh<\/p>\n
regarding the incident, then the consequential action of Aman Singh<\/p>\n
and Kashiram seems to be unnatural. They could visit the spot
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
immediately with the help of Chowkidar Hargovind and could take the<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan to their house in the night itself, therefore<\/p>\n
looking to the action of Kashiram and Aman Singh, their testimony is<\/p>\n
not believable. It seems that Kashiram could not see any one at the<\/p>\n
time when his brother was taken away from the field, because he was<\/p>\n
sleeping. Similarly Aman Singh could not know about the incident till<\/p>\n
he met with his son Hari Narayan on the way to Silwani.<\/p>\n
9.         In this case only eye witness remains is the complainant<\/p>\n
Hari Narayan. Chowkidar Hargovind (PW-7) and witness Sukhram<\/p>\n
(PW-10), cousin of the complainant were the persons who contacted<\/p>\n
after the incident, but it is strange that none of them have stated in the<\/p>\n
Court that Hari Narayan told anything about the incident to them.<\/p>\n
Neither Hargovind nor Sukhram are declared hostile and their<\/p>\n
testimony has been accepted as it is, therefore inference can be drawn<\/p>\n
that Hari Narayan did not tell anything about the incident to Hargovind<\/p>\n
or Sukhram. The evidence of Hari Narayan is corroborated by FIR<\/p>\n
Ex.P-9, but it is clear from the statements of Hari Narayan, Hargovind<\/p>\n
and Sukhram that at about 9 AM in the morning Hargovind contacted<\/p>\n
the complainant Hari Narayan and within an hour they took him to the<\/p>\n
Police Station Silwani. As per particulars shown in the FIR Ex.P-9 it is<\/p>\n
clear that Village Mankapur was only 10 kms away from Silwani and<\/p>\n
therefore complainant could reach Silwani from Mankapur by bullock-<\/p>\n
cart within two hours, hence it was expected that the report must have<\/p>\n
been lodged at about 12:30 PM on that day. Therefore, it is clear that<\/p>\n
FIR is delayed by at least 4 hours and that period is sufficient to cook
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
up the exaggerated story.\n<\/p>\n
10.       The complainant Hari Narayan claims that he was brought<\/p>\n
unconscious to the Police Station, but his such statement is not<\/p>\n
corroborated by the evidence of witnesses Sukhram and Hargovind. It<\/p>\n
is clear that Sukhram and Hargovind had a talk with the complainant<\/p>\n
Hari Narayan at the house of Prakash and therefore from that time it<\/p>\n
will be presumed that the complainant Hari Narayan was conscious<\/p>\n
since morning. Hari Narayan has admitted in para 8 of his statement<\/p>\n
that he remained unconscious till 6 AM in the morning.<\/p>\n
11.       By above discussion, it is clear that FIR is delayed and it<\/p>\n
could be cooked one. But due to delay in FIR, entire prosecution story<\/p>\n
cannot be thrown out. It is the duty of the Court to pick up the grains<\/p>\n
from chaff. complainant Hari Narayan has stated that he was confined<\/p>\n
in the room of Prakash’s house. Station House Officer Shri Vijay Vyas<\/p>\n
(PW-11) has prepared the spot map Ex.P-2 in which he has indicated<\/p>\n
that there were some blood spots found in the room of Prakash, but his<\/p>\n
evidence could not be corroborated by report of FSL, as no report has<\/p>\n
been received from the FSL. Therefore, it cannot be said that spots<\/p>\n
found by Shri Vijay Vyas (PW-11) were of human blood. On the contrary<\/p>\n
witness Hargovind has stated that he found the complainant Hari<\/p>\n
Narayan lying in an open room meant for keeping the cattle from<\/p>\n
where he could go anywhere. Complainant Hari Narayan states that he<\/p>\n
was confined in a room but in cross examination he admits that he<\/p>\n
could talk with Sukhram and Hargovind from the place where he was<\/p>\n
lying. If he was confined in the room, and the door was closed from the
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
outside, he could not talk with Chowkidar Hargovind or his cousin<\/p>\n
Sukhram, therefore evidence of Hargovind may be accepted that he<\/p>\n
was lying in an open place of Prakash’s house. Therefore, there is no<\/p>\n
case of confining the     complainant Hari Narayan anywhere. The<\/p>\n
learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that the appellants<\/p>\n
were guilty of offence under Section 342 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
12.         Complainant Hari Narayan has alleged that 7 persons,<\/p>\n
including the appellants and one Gambhir took him from his field. In<\/p>\n
FIR Ex.P-9 he narrated the fact regarding beating by axe and holding<\/p>\n
him by accused Prakash, Munna, Gambhir, Hakim , Sitaram and<\/p>\n
Prahalad, but in his statement before the Court he has not stated<\/p>\n
regarding the act of assault or holding against the accused Prakash,<\/p>\n
Prahalad and Ratiram. FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence. It is<\/p>\n
only a corroborative piece of evidence and therefore if the complainant<\/p>\n
Hari Narayan does not say anything against the accused Prakash,<\/p>\n
Prahalad and Ratiram, then they cannot be said to be part of unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly. It is clear that the FIR is delayed by 4 hours and there was<\/p>\n
sufficient time for the complainant Hari Narayan to cook up the story<\/p>\n
and to involve more accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
13.        Complainant Hari Narayan has alleged that in the house of<\/p>\n
Prakash, accused Munna assaulted him by axe whereas accused Hakim<\/p>\n
slapped him and Sitaram gave a kick from the side of shoe. He has not<\/p>\n
stated anything against remaining accused persons, whereas in F.I.R. it<\/p>\n
is mentioned that accused Hakim , Sitaram and Ratiram have beaten<\/p>\n
him by hands. There is nothing regarding any kick given by Sitaram,
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
even in the trial Court he did not alleged anything against Sitaram<\/p>\n
except a kick from the side of shoe. This contention is clearly after<\/p>\n
thought looking to the version mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore,<\/p>\n
contention of the complainant Hari Narayan may be accepted for this<\/p>\n
fact that the accused Munna gave four axe blows, whereas accused<\/p>\n
Hakim     slapped him. No overt-act of any other accused persons is<\/p>\n
proved.\n<\/p>\n
14.        The complainant has admitted in the cross examination that<\/p>\n
he was dragged by the accused persons from his field in dark. There<\/p>\n
was no light of electricity available in the entire way by which he was<\/p>\n
taken to the house of Prakash. His cousin Sukhram has accepted in his<\/p>\n
cross examination that in the night in which incident took place there<\/p>\n
was no electricity supply in the village and, therefore, it is clear that<\/p>\n
the complainant Hari Narayan could not see any of the accused<\/p>\n
persons. He could identify the accused persons with the help of their<\/p>\n
voice. However, looking to the evidence of complainant Hari Narayan<\/p>\n
he was assaulted by Hakim and Munna, therefore, identification of<\/p>\n
these two accused may be accepted and identification of remaining<\/p>\n
accused is still seems to be doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
15.        Learned counsel for the respondent-State has urged that the<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan was taken to the house of Prakash and,<\/p>\n
therefore, presence of Prakash may also be accepted. But this<\/p>\n
contention cannot be accepted in such a manner. It is true that Hari<\/p>\n
Narayan was lying in a house of Prakash, but from the entire story as<\/p>\n
stated by complainant Hari Narayan, witnesses Hargovind and
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
Sukhram, it is clear that Sukhram and Hargovind did not meet either<\/p>\n
Prakash or any other members of Prakash in the house. Hargovind and<\/p>\n
Sukhram have admitted that Hari Narayan was lying in the open room<\/p>\n
of the house where there was arrangement of keeping the cattle.<\/p>\n
Witnesses Hargovind and Sukhram visited twice the house of Prakash<\/p>\n
and there was no restriction in talking to Hari Narayan, who was lying<\/p>\n
in the aforesaid room without any confinement. These circumstances<\/p>\n
show that though Hari Narayan was taken to the house of Prakash, but<\/p>\n
Prakash and his family members were not there in the house on that<\/p>\n
day and, therefore, neither Hari Narayan could be taken inside the<\/p>\n
house nor he was confined, hence there was no hesitation to Sukhram<\/p>\n
and Hargovind in talking with the complainant Hari Narayan and<\/p>\n
taking him away from the house. Therefore, presence of Prakash at the<\/p>\n
time of incidence is doubtful. Hari Narayan has accepted the allegation<\/p>\n
levelled against him that he committed rape with the sister of Prakash,<\/p>\n
therefore, persons who have done the crime with Hari Narayan left him<\/p>\n
in the house of Prakash just to transfer their guilt over to the accused<\/p>\n
Prakash and his companion. However, since the appeal is deemed<\/p>\n
abated against Prakash, it is not necessary to decide the appeal against<\/p>\n
Prakash.\n<\/p>\n
16.        On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan could not be brought from his field by one<\/p>\n
or two persons, therefore, his evidence can be accepted that there<\/p>\n
were six persons involved in the crime. Out of them he could identify<\/p>\n
only accused Munna and Hakim Singh, therefore, it is clear that the
\n                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
unlawful assembly was made out, but except these two accused, it is<\/p>\n
not proved that the accused Gambhir, Sitaram and Prahlad had<\/p>\n
participated in the unlawful assembly, therefore, except the accused<\/p>\n
Hakim and Munna, none of other appellants could be convicted for<\/p>\n
offence under Section 147 of IPC, therefore, the appellants except<\/p>\n
Munna and Hakim Singh cannot be convicted for other offence with<\/p>\n
the help of Section 149 or Section 34 of IPC, as their presence is not<\/p>\n
proved beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
17.        Learned trial Court convicted the appellants for offence<\/p>\n
under Section 307 of IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants before<\/p>\n
the lower Court accepted the medical report Ex.P-13 and, therefore,<\/p>\n
concerned Dr.S.K.Singhai could not be examined in the Court, whereas<\/p>\n
the report Ex.P-13 is an important document for consideration of<\/p>\n
offence under Section 307 of IPC. In the report Ex.P-13, Dr.<\/p>\n
S.K.Singhai has mentioned that injuries No.1 and 2 were grievous<\/p>\n
whereas remaining injuries were simple in nature. In the report<\/p>\n
Ex.P-13, there were four injuries, which are as under:-<\/p>\n
(i)   Incised wound of size 4 \u00bd” x \u00bd” x bone deep on left parietal
\n      region of scalp and there was cut mark on the skull bone.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Incised wound of size 3″ x \u00bd” x bone deep on left shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Incised wound of size 2″ x \u00bd” x bone deep on left scapular region
\n      2″ blow from injury No.2.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Incised wound of size 4 \u00bd” x \u00bd” x muscle deep on right lumbar
\n      area.\n<\/p>\n
           Looking to the injury report, it is clear that neither any vital<\/p>\n
organ was damaged nor there was any fracture to any bone of the<\/p>\n
complainant. It is not clear that on what basis Dr. S.K.Singhai has<\/p>\n
mentioned that injuries No.1 and 2 were grievous. As per the
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
provisions of Section 320 of I.P.C., it is clear that injuries No.1 and 2 do<\/p>\n
not come in the category of grievous injuries, therefore, injuries of the<\/p>\n
complainant Hari Narayan may be considered to be simple injuries.<\/p>\n
Though axe blows were given on skull and shoulder, but looking to the<\/p>\n
injuries, these blows were not forceful and no intention of causing<\/p>\n
death can be attributed from the side of accused Munna.<\/p>\n
18.        Learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance<\/p>\n
on the dictum led by this Court in the case of “Moolchand Vs. State<\/p>\n
of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 498”, in which the<\/p>\n
conviction was altered from Section 307 to Section 325 of IPC, because<\/p>\n
there was one blow of stone given at the forehead of the deceased and<\/p>\n
it was observed that intention of the appellant to cause death was not<\/p>\n
established. In the present case, blows given by the appellant Munna<\/p>\n
were not forceful, one blow was on vital part of the body i.e. head, but<\/p>\n
only a simple injury is caused and, therefore, intention of killing cannot<\/p>\n
be presumed on the basis of evidence of the complainant and medical<\/p>\n
report prepared by Dr. S.K.Singhai.\n<\/p>\n
19.        On the basis of above discussion, accused persons cannot be<\/p>\n
punished for offence under Section 307 of IPC. The overt-act as<\/p>\n
established with the help of the prosecution evidence comes under the<\/p>\n
category of offence under Section 324 of IPC only. The charge under<\/p>\n
Section 324 of IPC is minor and of the same nature as of charge under<\/p>\n
Section 307 of IPC and, therefore, under the head of charge under<\/p>\n
Section 307 of IPC, the accused can be convicted for offence under<\/p>\n
Section 324 of IPC without addition to any charge.
\n                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
20.        On the aforesaid discussion, it is doubtful that the<\/p>\n
appellants Ratiram, Sitaram and Prahlad were present at the time of<\/p>\n
incidence and, therefore, they cannot be convicted for any of the<\/p>\n
offence. It is very clear that the complainant Hari Narayan was not<\/p>\n
confined at any place, therefore, offence under Section 342 of IPC is<\/p>\n
not made out against any of the appellants. The overt-act of Munna<\/p>\n
comes within the purview of Section 324 of IPC only, whereas appellant<\/p>\n
Hakim may be convicted for offence under Section 324 of IPC with the<\/p>\n
help of Section 149 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
21.        On the basis of above discussion, appeal is allowed for<\/p>\n
appellants Ratiram, Sitaram and Prahlad. Conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
against these three appellants is hereby set aside. They are acquitted<\/p>\n
from all the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds and<\/p>\n
sureties are discharged. The appeal of appellants Munna and Hakim<\/p>\n
Singh is partly allowed. They are acquitted from the charges of Section<\/p>\n
342, 307 of IPC, but their conviction for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 148 or 147 of IPC is maintained. Accused Munna is also<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 324 of IPC whereas the appellant Hakim Singh<\/p>\n
is convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC. Looking<\/p>\n
to the facts and duration of the trial, the sentence of appellant Munna<\/p>\n
for offence under Section 148 IPC is reduced to the sentence of 3<\/p>\n
months’ rigorous imprisonment, whereas the sentence of appellant<\/p>\n
Hakim Singh for offence under Section 147 IPC is reduced to the<\/p>\n
sentence of 2 months’ rigorous imprisonment. They shall undergo for a<\/p>\n
period of 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section
\n                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
324 or Section 324\/149 of IPC. The custody period of these two<\/p>\n
appellants will be adjusted in their jail sentence. All the sentences shall<\/p>\n
run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
22.        Accordingly, appeal is disposed off being partly allowed and<\/p>\n
modification of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (N.K.Gupta)
\n                                                          Judge
\n                                                      01\/07\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
Ansari\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SB: HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.631\/1994 Munna and others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri J.K.Jain, Deputy Advocate […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMunna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-04T15:21:59+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T15:21:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3215,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T15:21:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-04T15:21:59+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T15:21:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010"},"wordCount":3215,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010","name":"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T15:21:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munna-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 1 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/191017","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=191017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}