{"id":191789,"date":"2007-05-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-27T16:48:52","modified_gmt":"2015-01-27T11:18:52","slug":"manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1254 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nManik Das AND Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Assam\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. Arijit Pasayat &amp; D.K. Jain\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nGauhati High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The<br \/>\nappeal was directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2004 passed by learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants for offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in<br \/>\nShort the `IPC&#8217;) and sentencing each to undergo imprisonment for life  and<br \/>\nto pay a fine of Rs. 2000\/- with default stipulation.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>On 27th December, 2000, at about 11.00 a.m., one Probin Das, brother of<br \/>\nAnil Das (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased&#8217;) made a complaint to<br \/>\nthe officer in charge of the Teok Police Station that at about 6 a.m. on<br \/>\nthe same day Shri Manik Das s\/o Late Duti Das, Shri Bimal Das S\/o Sh. Manik<br \/>\nand Das Shri Dipak Das s\/o Shri Manik Das along with two others assaulted<br \/>\nhis brother Shri Anil Das with spears thereby severely injuring him while<br \/>\nhe was ploughing the field. He also stated that deceased-Anil Das was taken<br \/>\nto the Kakajan hospital for treatment but he died there. Accordingly, a<br \/>\ncase no. 35\/2000 dated 27.12.2000 was registered under Sections 147 and 302<br \/>\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. On 4th January, 2001, nearly a week after the alleged incident, the<br \/>\nstatements of Phukan Das (PW-1) and Kunmoni Borah (PW-7), the alleged<br \/>\neyewitnessesm were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jorhat<br \/>\nunder Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the`Cr.<br \/>\nP.C.). On 13th  May, 2002 charge sheet No. 45 of 2002 was filed against the<br \/>\nappellant herein in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147 and<br \/>\n302 IPC. By order dated 27th October, 2003, the case was committed by the<br \/>\nlearned SDJM(S), Jorhat, to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jothat for<br \/>\ntrial of offences under Sections 302 read with Section 147 IPC. On 13th<br \/>\nNovember, 2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat framed charge<br \/>\nunder Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Trial Court, as noted above, convicted the accused, which was affirmed<br \/>\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Primary stand of learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 34<br \/>\nhas no application to the facts of the case. In order to bring in<br \/>\napplication of the said provision personal presence of the accused at the<br \/>\nplace of occurance has to be established. According to him this has not<br \/>\nbeen done. It is pointed out that PWs. 3 &amp; 7 are stated to be eye witnesses<br \/>\nand PWs. 5 &amp; 6 are stated to be witnesses who  saw accused persons running<br \/>\naway from the place of occurance. Their presence was to be established.<br \/>\nThis has not been done. It is submitted that the so called eye witnesses<br \/>\nhave stated about the assaults made by the accused persons. Their<br \/>\nstatements were recorded in terms of Sections 164 Cr. P.C. They are related<br \/>\nto the deceased and, therefore, their evidence has to be discarded. Though<br \/>\nPW-3 named all the accused persons, PW-1 named only four of them. The post<br \/>\nmortem report shows injuries at various parts of the body of the deceased.<br \/>\nIt is thus submitted that Section 34 has no application and in any event<br \/>\nthose persons whose names did not figure in the FIR should not have been<br \/>\nconvicted.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the testimony<br \/>\nof the eye witnesses is clear and cogent. Merely because they are realted<br \/>\nto the deceased, that are related to the deceased, that cannot be a ground<br \/>\nto discard their evidence. There is no variation in the statements made<br \/>\nduring investigation and the evidence in Court. PWs. 3 &amp; 7 who are eye-<br \/>\nwitnesses categorically described in detail the role of each of the accused<br \/>\npersons.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the<br \/>\ndoing of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does<br \/>\nnot create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is<br \/>\nthe element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an<br \/>\noffence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by<br \/>\nseveral persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in<br \/>\nfurtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the<br \/>\ncrime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore,<br \/>\nsuch intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from<br \/>\nthe proved facts of the case and the proved proved circumstances. In order<br \/>\nto bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to<br \/>\nestablish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was<br \/>\nplan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence<br \/>\nfor which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged<br \/>\nor on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission<br \/>\nof the crime. The true content of the Section is that if two or more<br \/>\npersons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the<br \/>\nsame as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/664771\/\">Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR<\/a> (1977) SC 109, the existence of a<br \/>\ncommon intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential<br \/>\nelement for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts<br \/>\nof the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must<br \/>\nbe the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character,<br \/>\nbut must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order<br \/>\nto attract the provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. As it originally stood the Section 34 was in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;When a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is<br \/>\nliable for that act in the same manner as if the act was done by him<br \/>\nalone.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9. In 1870, it was amended by the insertion of the words &#8220;in furtherance of<br \/>\nthe common intention of all&#8221; after the word &#8220;persons&#8221; and before the word<br \/>\n&#8220;each&#8221;, so as to make object of Section 34 clear. This position was noted<br \/>\nin Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR (1945) Privy Council 118.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The Section does not sat &#8220;the common intention of all&#8221;, nor does if say<br \/>\n&#8220;and the intention common to all&#8221;. Under the provisions of Section 34 the<br \/>\nessence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common<br \/>\nintention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in<br \/>\nfurtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles<br \/>\nenunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302<br \/>\nread with Section, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act<br \/>\nwhich caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by<br \/>\nhim alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be<br \/>\ndifficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who<br \/>\nact in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what<br \/>\npart was taken by each of them. As was observed in <a href=\"\/doc\/239483\/\">Ch. Pulla Reddy and Ors.<br \/>\nv. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR<\/a> (1993) SC 1899, Section 34 is applicable<br \/>\neven if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For<br \/>\napplying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part<br \/>\nof the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. It is to be noted that the injuries found on post mortem, report<br \/>\ncorrespond to the version given by the eye witnesses. Both PWs. 3 &amp; 7<br \/>\ncategorically named four persons. In addition PW 3 has named the fifth<br \/>\naccused. Though PW 7 has not named the fifth accused persons specifically,<br \/>\nbut he has stated about the presence of another accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In that background it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to<br \/>\nestablish its accusations. Both the trial court and the High Court have<br \/>\nanalysed the evidence in great detail and found the same to be clear and<br \/>\ncogent. That being so there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 Author: D A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1254 of 2006 PETITIONER: Manik Das AND Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Assam DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/05\/2007 BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat &amp; D.K. Jain JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&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-191789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 - 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\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-27T11:18:52+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T11:18:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1361,\"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\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T11:18:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 - 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\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-27T11:18:52+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T11:18:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007"},"wordCount":1361,"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\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007","name":"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T11:18:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manik-das-and-ors-vs-state-of-assam-on-31-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manik Das And Ors vs State Of Assam on 31 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/191789","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=191789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191789\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}