{"id":193634,"date":"2009-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-24T19:36:31","modified_gmt":"2017-11-24T14:06:31","slug":"pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR\n             --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 529 of 2003\n\n                                  PAPPU\n                                   V\/S\n                                  STATE\n\n\n\n  Mr. SHAITAN SINGH, for the appellant\n  Mr. A.R. NIKUB, PP, for the respondent\n\n  Date of Order : 1.4.2009\n\n                             HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J.\n                              HON'BLE SHRI CM TOTLA,J.\n\n\n                                         JUDGMENT\n\n\n\nBY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE A.M. KAPADIA),J.<\/pre>\n
1. This criminal appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
  (‘the Code’ for short), is directed against the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
  02.04.2003 rendered in Sessions Case No.76 of 2002 by the learned<\/p>\n
  Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Pratapgarh, whereby he convicted<\/p>\n
  and sentenced appellant\/accused Pappu s\/o Chhogalal (hereinafter<\/p>\n
  referred to as “A-1”), as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
   U\/s. 302 IPC         Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000, in
\n                        default of payment of fine to further undergo six
\n                        months’ simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
   U\/s. 452 IPC         Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
\n                        Rs.2,000, in default of payment of fine to further
\n                        undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
   U\/s. 324\/34 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
\n                   Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine to further
\n                   undergo two months’ simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
   U\/s. 323\/34 IPC Six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500, in
\n                   default of payment of fine to further undergo one
\n                   month’s simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
             All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the F.I.R. and unfolded during<\/p>\n
  trial, is as under:\n<\/p>\n
  2.1          On 10.08.2002, in the morning at about 4          O’ clock,<\/p>\n
     complainant Smt. Haga Kalbelia, resident of Salamgarh Hat, lodged<\/p>\n
     a verbal report at Police Station Pratapgarh, alleging inter-alia that<\/p>\n
     for last about 10 years she was living with Sorab Mansuri s\/o Abdul<\/p>\n
     Rehman as his wife and two children were born to them. One year<\/p>\n
     prior to the incident, she left Sorab Mansuri and started living with<\/p>\n
     Pappu s\/o Chhoga Kalbelia but since he used to beat her, she left<\/p>\n
     Pappu and again started living with Sorab Mansuri, in the rented<\/p>\n
     house of Neka s\/o Bajja Nath Kalbelia.       On the day of incident,<\/p>\n
     when she, her husband Sorab Mansuri and Imran, the nephew of
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
  Sorab Mansuri, were sleeping in house and the doors of house were<\/p>\n
  kept open on account of summer, A-1 alongwith his brother<\/p>\n
  Narunath     entered in the house.    A-1 was having a knife and<\/p>\n
  Narunath A-2 was having a sword and both were saying that they<\/p>\n
  would finish them. When her husband tried to get up, A-1 inflicted<\/p>\n
  a knife blow on the chest of Sorab and when Pappu tried to inflict<\/p>\n
  second blow, her husband Sorab raised his hand and therefore he<\/p>\n
  received knife injury on his left hand. When she tried to intervene,<\/p>\n
  Narunath also tried to chop her nose and as a result of which she<\/p>\n
  also received injury on her nose. When she alongwith her husband<\/p>\n
  tried to save their lives, her husband fell down in front of the<\/p>\n
  house. On hearing cries, Sabeer, Jakir and Premnath came there<\/p>\n
  but because of darkness accused could not be caught. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
  her husband was taken to hospital where he was declared dead.<\/p>\n
2.2          On the aforesaid information, a case under Sections 452,<\/p>\n
  302, 307, 323 and 324\/34 IPC was registered. During the course of<\/p>\n
  investigation, inquest was held on the dead body of deceased Sorab<\/p>\n
  and thereafter the dead body was sent for autopsy. Panchnama of<\/p>\n
  the scene of occurrence was prepared and statements of the<\/p>\n
  witnesses were record.\n<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
2.3   At the end of investigation. as sufficient incriminating evidence<\/p>\n
  was found against both the accused. chargesheet was filed against<\/p>\n
  them in the Court of ACJM, Pratapgarh.               Since accused Narunath<\/p>\n
  (A-2) absconded, he was shown as absconder in the chargesheet. As<\/p>\n
  the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by<\/p>\n
  the Court of Sessions, the learned ACJM, Pratapgarh committed the<\/p>\n
  case to the Sessions Court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast<\/p>\n
  Track) Pratapgarh (‘trial Court, for short), to whom the case was<\/p>\n
  made over for trial, framed charge against A-1 for commission of<\/p>\n
  offence as per the chargesheet. The charges were read over and<\/p>\n
  explained to him. A-1 pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried,<\/p>\n
  therefore, he was put to trial by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.<\/p>\n
  76\/02.\n<\/p>\n
2.4     To prove the culpability of the accused, prosecution examined<\/p>\n
  as many as 17 witnesses and also produced documents Ex.P\/1 to<\/p>\n
  Ex.P\/25.\n<\/p>\n
2.5     After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses<\/p>\n
  was    over,   the   trial   Court       explained   to   the   accused   the
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
  circumstances appearing against him and recorded his further<\/p>\n
  statement under Sec.313 of the Code. In his further statement,<\/p>\n
  accused A-1 denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety and<\/p>\n
  stated that false case has been filed against him, however, he<\/p>\n
  neither produced any evidence nor did he examine any witness in<\/p>\n
  support of his defence.\n<\/p>\n
2.6    On appreciation, evaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
  evidence on record, trial Court came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
  prosecution has successfully established the complicity of the<\/p>\n
  accused for committing murder.      It was also held that out of the<\/p>\n
  two injuries received by the deceased, one injury was fatal. Trial<\/p>\n
  Court further held that it is a case of pre-planned murder.<\/p>\n
2.7   On the aforesaid finding, the trial Court held that offence<\/p>\n
  against accused under Sec.302 IPC is proved.      Consequently, the<\/p>\n
  trial Court convicted A-1 for the said offences and sentenced him to<\/p>\n
  undergone imprisonment as mentioned in foregoing paragraph of<\/p>\n
  this judgment, which has given rise to the present appeal at the<\/p>\n
  instance of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
3. Learned counsel for accused A-1 Mr. Shaitan Singh submitted that<\/p>\n
  there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime except the<\/p>\n
  evidence of PW16 Haga and PW12 Imran, who at the relevant time<\/p>\n
  were residing with the deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed<\/p>\n
  on her testimony and it is unsafe to rely on her oral testimony. It is<\/p>\n
  also submitted by him that the remaining witnesses have turned<\/p>\n
  hostile, therefore, prosecution could not prove the case against A-1.<\/p>\n
                     On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
  appellant submits that there is no evidence against the accused,<\/p>\n
  however, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by<\/p>\n
  the prosecution in correct perspective and conviction and sentenced<\/p>\n
  recorded against the accused is against the evidence on record,<\/p>\n
  therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence suffers from<\/p>\n
  non-appreciation of evidence and it deserves to be quashed and set<\/p>\n
  aside by allowing this appeal and thereby acquitting the accused of the<\/p>\n
  offence with which he is charged.\n<\/p>\n
                    Alternatively, it is also submitted by him that if this<\/p>\n
  Court accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in toto, in that<\/p>\n
  case also it is not a case of murder punishable under Sec.302 IPC but a<\/p>\n
  case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under<\/p>\n
  Sec.304 Part II IPC as the accused has inflicted only a single fatal blow
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
  on the lungs of the deceased and that too after seeing Haga there, to<\/p>\n
  whom he claims to be his wife and who was staying with the deceased.<\/p>\n
  He, therefore, urged to pass appropriate order in this regard.<\/p>\n
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. A.R. Nikub, has supported<\/p>\n
  the judgment and order of conviction and sentence throughout.<\/p>\n
  According to him, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court<\/p>\n
  in recording the conviction and order of sentence against the accused.<\/p>\n
5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel<\/p>\n
  appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
  order.   This Court has undertaken a complete and comprehensive<\/p>\n
  appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence<\/p>\n
  on record, which is read and re-read by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
  parties with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the<\/p>\n
  case. This Court has examined the entire evidence on record for itself<\/p>\n
  independently of the learned Judge of the trial Court and considered<\/p>\n
  the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused and infirmities<\/p>\n
  pressed, scrupulously with a view to find out as to whether the trial<\/p>\n
  Court has rightly recorded the order of conviction and sentence.
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
6. There is no dispute that Sorab died homicidal death. To prove this<\/p>\n
  fact, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of PW4 Dr. Vimal<\/p>\n
  Kumar Gandhi, who performed the postmortem of the deceased. The<\/p>\n
  postmortem report is on record as Ex.P\/7.            On conjoint reading of<\/p>\n
  the oral testimony of PW4 Dr. Vimal Kumar Gandhi and the<\/p>\n
  Postmortem report Ex.P.7, it is seen that deceased received following<\/p>\n
  two injuries:\n<\/p>\n
  1. Incised wound – \u00be” x \u00bc” x Lung issue on upper sternal area of chest<\/p>\n
  obliquely below Sterno clavicular joint.\n<\/p>\n
  2. Incised wound – 1 \u00bd” x \u00be” muscle artery, vein deep obliquely over<\/p>\n
  left forearm, medial side, Ant to post aspect at lower end of middle<\/p>\n
  1\/3rd part.\n<\/p>\n
                It is also stated in the report that both the injuries are ante-<\/p>\n
  mortem and caused by sharp weapon. The cause of death was due to<\/p>\n
  hemorrhagic shock because of injury to right lung. The injury caused<\/p>\n
  to the deceased on the right lung was fatal, therefore, it has to be<\/p>\n
  held that the deceased died a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7. Now the next question which calls for consideration is whether A-1 was<\/p>\n
  the author of the injuries. In this connection, prosecution relied upon<\/p>\n
  oral testimony of number of eye witnesses, however, out of those
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
  witnesses only two witnesses have supported the prosecution case.<\/p>\n
8. First, we will refer the evidence of PW16 Haga, who has lodged the FIR<\/p>\n
  also. She has inter-alia testified before the Court that it was about<\/p>\n
  five months back when she was sleeping in the house. Her husband,<\/p>\n
  two children and nephew of her husband were there. It was about 3 O’<\/p>\n
  Clock in the night when Pappu and Naru came to her house. Naru was<\/p>\n
  having a sword in his hand and Pappu was having a Knife. Soon after<\/p>\n
  coming there, Pappu gave knife blow in the chest of her husband Sorab<\/p>\n
  and the blow of sword was given by Naru on her nose. Knife blow was<\/p>\n
  also given on the hand of her husband. On receiving knife blow, her<\/p>\n
  husband stood up to catch hold of Pappu and Naru but he fell down as<\/p>\n
  soon as he went outside and Pappu and Noru both took to their heels<\/p>\n
  towards Chittorgarh road.    On their raising cries, at the place of<\/p>\n
  incident Sagri, Meera and Badri came who took her husband in lap till<\/p>\n
  that time her husband was alive. Thereafter, her husband was taken<\/p>\n
  to hospital by elder brother of her husband and 2-3 other persons,<\/p>\n
  however, he died.    She has been cross examined at length by the<\/p>\n
  learned counsel for the defence but nothing has been brought out<\/p>\n
  which would impeach the credibility of her evidence.
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
9. The prosecution has thereafter relied upon the testimony of PW 11<\/p>\n
  Imran, who was present and who has inter-alia testified in his<\/p>\n
  testimony that on the night of incident he was sleeping at the house of<\/p>\n
  his maternal uncle (Mama) where his uncle Sorab, aunt Haga and two<\/p>\n
  children were also sleeping. Pappu and Naru came in night and fought<\/p>\n
  with his uncle with nife.   He further stated that Pappu, who was<\/p>\n
  having knife in his hand gave blow on the his chest of his uncle and on<\/p>\n
  trying to save him by his aunt, Naru who was having sword in his hand<\/p>\n
  gave sword blow on the nose of his aunt. His uncle Sorab received<\/p>\n
  injuries on his chest and hand. During the incident, he shouted loudly<\/p>\n
  so Badri came there and called his another uncle Jakir.        He also<\/p>\n
  testified that at the place of incident he had seen Pappu and Naur and<\/p>\n
  that they had fled away after causing injuries.           In his cross<\/p>\n
  examination nothing contrary came out.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.On reappraisal of the evidence of aforesaid two eye witnesses,<\/p>\n
  according to us, there is no contradiction vis a vis their evidence.<\/p>\n
  PW16 Haga has in unequivocal terms stated before the Court as per<\/p>\n
  the statement made by her in the complaint.        Her evidence is of<\/p>\n
  sterling quality, which also gets corroboration from the evidence of<\/p>\n
  PW11 Imran.\n<\/p>\n
                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
11.It is settled position of law by catena of decision of the Supreme<\/p>\n
  Court that evidence of sole eye witness if it is of sterling quality and<\/p>\n
  unimpeachable, conviction can be recorded on the basis of it. In the<\/p>\n
  instant case, evidence of Haga (PW16) is of sterling quality,<\/p>\n
  unimpeachable, inspiring confidence and being trustworthy, reliance<\/p>\n
  can be placed upon her oral testimony to base conviction of the<\/p>\n
  accused for commission of the offence of murder of Sorab.            Her<\/p>\n
  evidence also gets corroboration from the evidence of PW11 Imran.<\/p>\n
12.In the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar Vs. State of<\/p>\n
  Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2008 SC 927, the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
  has held that conviction can be based on the basis of evidence of a<\/p>\n
  solitary witness. Sec.134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly states that<\/p>\n
  no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case,<\/p>\n
  conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness if he is<\/p>\n
  wholly reliable.   Corroboration may be necessary only when the<\/p>\n
  witness is partially reliable.   If the evidence is unblemished and<\/p>\n
  beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness<\/p>\n
  was speaking the truth, on such evidence alone conviction can be<\/p>\n
  maintained.\n<\/p>\n
                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
13.On re-appreciation of the evidence of two eye witnesses,       we are<\/p>\n
  convinced that there was no reason for both the witnesses to falsely<\/p>\n
  implicate the accused, therefore, according to us, complicity of the<\/p>\n
  accused is duly established.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.The contention of the learned counsel that it is a case of single blow,<\/p>\n
  therefore, conviction recorded under Sec.302 IPC is required to be<\/p>\n
  altered into under Sec.304 Part II IPC has no substance because the<\/p>\n
  incident has not taken place in hot exchange of words in a spur of<\/p>\n
  moment. A-1 came in the company of respondent accused No.2 with<\/p>\n
  weapon in mid night with a view to take revenge as PW16 Haga left his<\/p>\n
  house and again accompanied the deceased.        Therefore, there was<\/p>\n
  intention on the part of A-1, who came with the weapon knife to kill<\/p>\n
  the deceased. Therefore, according to us, it is not a case of culpable<\/p>\n
  homicide not amounting to murder but it is a clearcut case of murder.<\/p>\n
15.We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid finding,<\/p>\n
  ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
  recorded by the trial Court and according to us no other finding or<\/p>\n
  conclusion could have been reached by the trial Court except the one
\n                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
  reached by the trial Court on the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
  with which we agree and according to us, it is required to be<\/p>\n
  confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.Seen in the above context, there is no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
  impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by<\/p>\n
  the trial Court and hence the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be<\/p>\n
  dismissed by confirming and maintaining the judgment and order<\/p>\n
  conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
17.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is<\/p>\n
  dismissed. Resultantly, the judgment and order of conviction and<\/p>\n
  sentence dated 02.04.2003 rendered in Sessions Case No.76 of 2002 by<\/p>\n
  the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Pratapgarh is confirmed<\/p>\n
  and maintained.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 ( CM TOTLA ),J.                                       ( AM KAPADIA ),J.\n\n\nJPA\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ——————————————————– CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 529 of 2003 PAPPU V\/S STATE Mr. SHAITAN SINGH, for the appellant Mr. A.R. NIKUB, PP, for the respondent Date of Order : 1.4.2009 HON’BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nPappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 - 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\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-24T14:06:31+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-24T14:06:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2494,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-24T14:06:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 - 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\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-24T14:06:31+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-24T14:06:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009"},"wordCount":2494,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009","name":"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-24T14:06:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappu-vs-state-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pappu vs State on 1 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/193634","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=193634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}