{"id":191915,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3"},"modified":"2017-01-14T14:28:40","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T08:58:40","slug":"appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3","title":{"rendered":"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/276\/2005\t 19\/ 19\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 276 of 2005\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHARIJAN\nCHAMAR BECHARJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI  & Anr. \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nBM MANGUKIYA for\nAppellants. \nMR. M.R.MENGDEY, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the\nState. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellants were accused in Sessions Case No.70\/2000 decided by the
\nSessions Court, Bhavnagar, on 6.1.2005. They were charged with
\noffences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the
\nIndian Penal Code [ IPC  for short] and Section 498-A read with
\nSection 114 of IPC, and came to be convicted for the said offences.
\nThey were sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.
\n500\/- each, in default to undergo S.I for 30 days, for the offence of
\nmurder of Hansaben, wife of appellant No.1. For the offence
\npunishable under Section 498-A IPC, they were sentenced to
\nimprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.100\/-
\neach, in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Both the
\nsentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of set off was
\ngiven to the appellants by judgment and order dated 6.1.2005 impugned
\nherein.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are that appellant No.1,
\nBecharbhai, was married to deceased Hansa about 10 years prior to the
\nincident, which occurred on 22.1.2000. The allegation was that
\nappellant No.2, mother of appellant No.1 and mother-in-law of
\ndeceased Hansaben, used to cause harassment to the deceased on the
\nground of household work, and appellant No.1 used to lend support to
\nher.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\t\tAs
\nper the prosecution case, on 22.1.2000 at about 4.00 P.M., appellant
\nNo.2 poured kerosene on the deceased while she was preparing tea and
\nappellant No.1 ignited the deceased. The deceased suffered extensive
\nburns and ultimately succumbed to the same. The deceased was taken to
\nhospital by appellant No.1 with the help of others and was given
\ntreatment. As it was a medico-legal case,  police was informed.
\nPolice arrived at the hospital and intimated Executive Magistrate for
\nrecording dying declaration. The police also recorded  F.I.R. On the
\nbasis of the FIR offence was registered and was investigated.
\nUltimately, the police having found sufficient material to connect
\nthe appellants with the crime, filed charge sheet against the
\nappellants in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Shihor, who, in turn,
\ncommitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Bhavnagar, where
\nSessions Case No.70\/2000 came to be registered.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\ntrial Court framed charges against both the appellants\/accused at
\nExh.6 to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tThe
\nSessions Court, after considering the evidence, found that the
\ncharges levelled against the appellants were proved and, therefore,
\nconvicted both of them for the offences punishable under Section 302
\nas well as Section 498-A IPC. Hence, this appeal by the convicts.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya for the appellants and learned
\nA.P.P. Mr.Mengdey for the State, at length and in great detail.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Mangukiya, appearing for the appellants, submitted that
\nthe trial Court has convicted both the appellants on the basis of two
\ndying declarations, one in the form of the FIR and the other before
\nthe Executive Magistrate. There is no other evidence to implicate the
\nappellants. According to Mr.Mangukiya, neither of the dying
\ndeclarations would  inspire confidence of the  Court. According to
\nhim, if the dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate
\n(Exh.15) is seen, there are interpolations in the dying declaration
\nregarding timing and even the language which is purported to have
\nbeen used by the deceased.  He submitted that if the evidence of the
\nInvestigating Officer is seen, he has admitted that he filed a wrong
\ncharge sheet. Mr.Mangukiya submitted that the Doctor has, in terms,
\nstated that the burn injuries appear to be suicidal in nature and
\naccidental burns were not possible. He submitted that the trial Court
\nhas overlooked the fact that the appellants themselves took the
\nvictim to the hospital. It was a case of either suicide or accident,
\nbut not homicide, in any case. Mr.Mangukiya submitted that the
\ndocuments would go to show that initially accidental death was
\nregistered, which was then  converted into a murder. He then
\nsubmitted that all these factors having not been considered by the
\ntrial Court, the appeal may be allowed and the conviction may be set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned
\nA.P.P. Mr.Mengdey has opposed this appeal. According to him, there
\nare some over-writings in the Time Column of the dying declaration
\nbefore the Executive Magistrate (Exh.15), but they are genuine
\nmistakes, as can be seen from other contemporaneous documents. He
\nsubmitted that over-writings or interpolations would certainly raise
\na doubt, but the doubt has to be a reasonable one and here that
\nelement of doubt being reasonable is absent. He submitted that
\nconjoint reading of other contemporaneous record rules out the
\npossibility of tempering. Mr. Mengdey submitted that there are two
\ndying declarations recorded by independent persons, who have no axe
\nto grind against the appellants. No animosity, grudge or grievance is
\nalleged either against the Executive Magistrate or against the Police
\nOfficer, who recorded the dying declarations. Mr.Mengdey submitted
\nthat it is true that the Doctor has opined that the  burn injuries
\nappear to be suicidal in nature, but that is only an opinion of the
\ndoctor and it would not override or abrogate the evidence in the form
\nof dying declaration recorded by the competent and independent
\ngovernment officials, who have no interest in either of the parties.
\nThe dying declarations are consistent and clearly implicate the
\nappellants in the offences with which they were charged. Mr.Mengdey,
\ntherefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWe
\nhave examined the record and proceedings of the case in the context
\nof rival sides submissions.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tMr.Mangukiya
\nis right when he says that the prosecution case depends mainly on the
\ndying declarations of the deceased in the form of FIR and one before
\nthe Executive Magistrate. It is also revealed from the record that
\nrelatives of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case.
\nThese pieces of evidence, therefore, will have to be examined very
\ncarefully.\n<\/p>\n
8.1
\nThe dying declaration (Exh.15) was recorded by PW.1 Hasmukhrai
\nShantilal Trivedi, Executive Magistrate, examined at Exh.13. In his
\nevidence, he has stated that he received Yadi (Exh.14) and had put
\nhis initials in the margin of Yadi to acknowledge the receipt
\nthereof. He thereafter went to Sir T. Hospital and met the doctor on
\nduty, showed him the Yadi received by him from the police. Thereafter
\nthe doctor took him to the Burns Ward where the deceased was being
\ntreated. The doctor examined victim Hansaben physically  to know
\nwhether she was conscious or not and thereafter put an endorsement on
\nthe form of dying declaration. Thereafter the doctor went away and
\nthe witness remained in the cabin along with the patient. He
\nintroduced himself as the Executive Magistrate and asked her to state
\nas to what had happened. He then recorded her dying declaration as
\nstated by the declarant. After recording the declaration, he took
\nthumb impression of Hansaben, as she was not literate and was not in
\na position to sign. He himself put an endorsement and attested the
\nthumb impression of Hansaben and called the doctor and inquired about
\nthe state of health of the deceased and the doctor put endorsement to
\nthe effect that Hansaben was conscious when her statement was
\nrecorded. That dying declaration was produced at Exh.15. The
\nrecording of dying declaration lasted for about 30 to 35 minutes.\n<\/p>\n
8.2
\nThis witness has been cross-examined at length. During his
\ncross-examination, it is revealed that the Yadi was received by him
\nat his Office at about 8.05 hours in the evening. It also reveals
\nthat he reached the hospital within five minutes and within 2-3
\nminutes he was at the place where the patient was; after consulting
\nthe doctor. He admits that in the dying declaration (Exh.15) there is
\nan over-writing of the time of receipt of Yadi i.e. 20.05 hours. He
\nalso admits that the time of recording of dying declaration indicated
\nto be 20.05 hours, which is then scored out and in the bracket 20.35
\nis written. He also admits that he had not put his initial over
\nthere. Similarly, questions regarding grill in the kitchen was also
\nput and the witness has explained that initially the deceased spoke
\nabout the room and then the kitchen and, therefore, he made necessary
\nchanges in the dying declaration in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
8.3\t\tAs
\nsuch, on close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find  anything
\nturning on the cross-examination to render the recording of the dying
\ndeclaration doubtful. On the contrary, we find that there is no
\nover-writing in the dying declaration (Exh.15) in respect of time of
\nreceipt of yadi. It is, in fact, written, scored out and separately
\ntime was indicated as  20.05  hours. What is scored out is  8
\n and it appears that the Executive Magistrate probably wanted to
\nindicate the time in twelve hours mode and then thought of indicating
\nit in twenty four hours. Fact however is that there is no
\noverwriting. If we see the Yadi (Exh.14), it contains specific
\nendorsement of the Executive Magistrate indicating the time of
\nreceipt of Yadi to be 20.05 hours. The argument about manipulation of
\ntime, therefore, does not survive.\n<\/p>\n
8.4\t\tThe
\ndying declaration (Exh.15), if seen, would indicate that its
\nrecording  was started at 20.35 hours and was completed at 20.55
\nhours. There is over-writing in noting the time of commencement of
\nrecording of dying declaration and it has immediately been written
\ndown in the bracket as  20.35 . Though no initials are made
\nthere,  at the bottom of the dying declaration it is recorded that
\nthe recording was completed at 20.55 hours. During his
\ncross-examination the Executive Magistrate has indicated that the
\nrecording of dying declaration lasted for about 30 to 35 minutes. If
\nwe consider this, then the time of commencement of recording of dying
\ndeclaration would tally and can be said to have been  correctly
\nmentioned\/noted. Incidentally, there is no correction in the time of
\ncompleting the recording of declaration.\n<\/p>\n
8.5\t\tThe
\nother argument that is advanced   is that the evidence of the
\ninvestigating officer, who recorded the FIR, would reveal that the
\ntime of recording of FIR and the time of recording dying declaration
\nare same, which would mean, either of the two is incorrect and
\nrecording of dying declaration by the Executive Magistrate is not
\ngenuine. In this context, if the evidence of investigating officer
\nMr.Sahdevsinh Jitubha Gohil recorded at Exh.29, is seen, he has
\nstated initially that he went to the hospital, inquired about the
\nhealth of the deceased and recorded her FIR and thereafter sent Yadi
\n(Exh.14) to the Executive Magistrate. The FIR was concluded at 20.30
\nhours and, therefore, recoding of it must have started prior to 20.30
\nhours. The evidence of the Executive Magistrate indicates that he
\nrecorded the dying declaration between 20.05 hours and 20.55 hours.
\nIt is, therefore, contended that both, the dying declaration and the
\nFIR were recorded simultaneously. Even the investigating officer has
\nstated that after recording the FIR, he sent Yadi to the Executive
\nMagistrate and, therefore, no reliance could have been placed by the
\ntrial Court   on the dying declarations for convicting the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
8.6\t\tIn
\nthis context, it may be recorded that the investigating officer has,
\nin his examination-in-chief, initially stated that he recorded the
\nFIR and thereafter sent Yadi (Exh.14) to the Executive Magistrate for
\nrecording dying declaration. However, during his cross-examination,
\nhe has stated that it was his mistake to have stated that after
\nrecording FIR, he sent Yadi to the Executive Magistrate. According to
\nthe investigating officer, he had first sent Yadi to the Executive
\nMagistrate for recording dying declaration i.e. prior to recording
\nthe FIR. We are prepared to accept this explanation in view of the
\nfact that his evidence was recorded on  13.8.2004, practically four
\nyears after filing of the charge sheet.  Such mistakes cannot wipe
\nout the effect of contemporaneous record. The Yadi was already
\nreceived by the Executive Magistrate at 20.05 hours and that can be
\nseen from Exh.14. Therefore,  sending Yadi by the investigating
\nofficer after recording FIR which was concluded at 20.30 hours would
\nnot be a correct statement of fact, but only a mistake. In fact, if
\nthe dying declaration Exh.15 and FIR Exh.30 are seen, they would
\nclearly reveal that after recording of the FIR was over at about
\n20.30 hours, recording of the dying declaration Exh.15 was commenced
\nfrom 20.35 hours. If the time of 20.35 hours  appearing in the
\ninitial part of Exh.15 was manipulated or changed so as to suit the
\nprosecution case, there would have been manipulation\/change at the
\nend of the dying declaration where it was indicated that recording of
\ndying declaration was over at 20.55 hours, but there is no change or
\nalteration or modification or manipulation at the end. This argument,
\ntherefore, does not appeal to us much.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nwas then contended that the evidence of the doctor has been ignored
\nby the trial Court. The Doctor, in his evidence, has stated that in
\nhis opinion the deceased had not suffered accidental burn injuries,
\nbut the injuries were suicidal in nature. Mr.Mangukiya, therefore,
\nvehemently argued that this would
\nrule out the possibility of homicidal burns being caused for death of
\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
9.1\tThe
\nevidence of the doctor is in the form of opinion, which he had formed
\nupon examining the patient. It would not override or abrogate the
\neffect and impact of direct evidence as to the occurrence in the form
\nof dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate and the FIR,
\nwhich are  found to be genuine and trustworthy. The situation may be
\ndifferent if the medical evidence (not opinion) runs totally contrary
\nto the version of an eye witness.\n<\/p>\n
9.2\t\tWe
\ndistinguish the medical opinion and medical evidence. Medical
\nevidence would be what is\/was seen or noticed  by the doctor while
\nexamining the patient or finding of fact on the basis of pathological
\nor other investigations. On the other hand, medical opinion would
\nmean his view or opinion formed on the basis of what he has medically
\nexamined and cause of result\/death. Therefore, in the instant case,
\nwe have to to give a close look at the opinion of the doctor, who has
\nafter examining the burn injuries,
\nopined that they were suicidal. It is not the case of either side
\nthat the deceased suffered suicidal burns. Therefore, the opinion
\nmakes no dent in the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIt
\nwas also argued that the thumb impressions on the dying declaration
\nand the FIR were got up and fake. In support of this argument, it was
\ncontended that it has come in the evidence that the deceased suffered
\nabout 95% burns all over her body and that, as her arms were burnt,
\nshe could not have put the thumb impression and even if it was put,
\nit would not show ridges of it, which were clearly visible in the
\ndying declaration (Exh.15). In this context,  doctor’s evidence is
\nrelevant. The doctor has stated that both the upper limbs were burnt
\nand upper limbs would include part of the hand from shoulder upto
\nfingers. It has also come in the evidence of the doctor that if the
\nskin is burnt, it would not show the lining and ridges of the skin.
\nIn light of this evidence, it was contended that since both the upper
\nlimbs were burnt, the thumb impression of the deceased, which shows
\nthe lines and marks of ridges, could not have been obtained. In this
\ncontext, we may refer
\nto the cross-examination of the doctor, where the doctor, in terms,
\nhas stated that the deceased had put thumb impression on the dying
\ndeclaration Exh.15
\nin his presence. We notice that nowhere the doctor has stated that
\nthe palms of the deceased were burnt and upper limb would include
\nfrom shoulder up-till fingers. Thus, when the Executive Magistrate
\nhas certified that he had obtained thumb impression of the deceased
\non the dying declaration and when it emerges during the course of
\ncross-examination of the doctor that he saw the thumb impression of
\nthe deceased being taken by the Executive Magistrate,   we have no
\nreason to doubt their versions. They are independent witnesses and
\nare not shown to have any grievance or prejudice against the
\nappellants. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of such
\nindependent government officials.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt
\nwas then contended that the neighbours and the treating doctor have
\nnot been examined by the prosecution. In our opinion, non-examination
\nof these witnesses has not caused any prejudice to the appellants
\nwhen the prosecution case is duly established by independent, cogent
\nand reliable evidence. It is the quality of evidence which is
\nrelevant and not quantity.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nnext argument was that, initially, the offence was registered as an
\naccidental death. In this context, our attention was drawn to
\ndocument Exh.14, which is the Yadi written by the police officer to
\nthe Executive Magistrate. We rest content only by saying that there
\nis no reference to any accidental death. What is referred to is an
\noccurrence and not accidental death. The argument, therefore, cannot
\nsustain.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIt
\nwas argued that as per the dying declaration, kerosene was removed
\nfrom a stove in a small bowl, which was then poured on the victim and
\nthen the victim was set on fire. It was the case of the defence that
\nsuch a small quantity of kerosene could not have caused such
\nextensive burns. It was opined by the doctor that the victim had
\nstated the manner in which the incident had occurred, and once the
\ndying declaration was found to be reliable, it would not be
\npermissible to go into such questions which would call for drawing
\nsurmises or inferences and then drawing conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn
\nthe light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that there
\nis no reason to doubt or suspect the genuineness or correctness of
\nthe dying declaration (Exh.15) and the FIR (Exh.30), both of which
\nimplicate both the appellants. It is clear that both the appellants
\nhave participated in causing the death of the victim by pouring
\nkerosene on her and setting her to fire.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tNo
\nother contention was raised or judgment was cited by the learned
\nadvocate for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tHowever,
\nbefore we conclude our judgment, we notice that both the appellants
\nare convicted for the offences of murder of Hansaben punishable under
\nSection 302 IPC and Section 498-A IPC for causing harassment to
\nHansaben. In this context, we may notice that the parents of Hansaben
\nhave not supported the case about harassment by the appellants. Not
\nonly that, if the dying declaration is closely examined, it would go
\nto show that the allegations are against appellant No.2,
\nmother-in-law, about taunting the deceased on household issues. There
\nare no other attributions even to mother-in-law and,
\ntherefore, in our view, in light of the provisions contained in
\nSection 498-A IPC, it would not fall within the meaning of ‘cruelty .
\nThe conviction of both the appellants under Section 498-A IPC,
\ntherefore, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tResultantly,
\nthis appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of both the appellants
\nrecorded by the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No.
\n70\/2000, by judgment and order dated 6.1.2005, for the offence
\npunishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set
\naside and they are acquitted of the said offence. Fine, if paid in
\nrespect of this offence, be refunded to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tConviction
\nrecorded and sentence awarded to both the appellants  by the Sessions
\nCourt, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 70\/2000, by judgment and order
\ndated 6.1.2005,  for the offence of murder of Hansaben is hereby
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t[A.L.Dave,J.]\t[Bankim
\nN.Mehta,J.]<\/p>\n
(patel)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/276\/2005 19\/ 19 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 276 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-14T08:58:40+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T08:58:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\"},\"wordCount\":3269,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\",\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T08:58:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 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":"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-14T08:58:40+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T08:58:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3"},"wordCount":3269,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3","name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T08:58:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 18 March, 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\/191915","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=191915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}