{"id":197385,"date":"2011-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011"},"modified":"2014-05-25T04:13:22","modified_gmt":"2014-05-24T22:43:22","slug":"ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                           1\n     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n            PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n\n        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2320\/2006\n\n\n              Ram Sevak and 13 others\n                        Versus\n            The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\nFor the appellants :   Shri Amit Jain, Advocate\nno.1,2,4 &amp; 11\nFor the appellants :   Shri Jafar Khan\nno. 3 to 10 and\n12 to 14\nFor State         : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Penal Lawyer\n\n\nPRESENT:\n            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S.SOLANKI\n\n\n                       Date of hearing:10\/02\/2011\n                       Date of Judgment:11\/02\/2011\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The appellants have preferred this appeal against<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment dated 29\/11\/2006 passed by Third<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 192\/2005,<br \/>\nwhereby the appellants have been convicted u\/s 325\/149<br \/>\nof IPC and sentenced to RI for four years and fine of Rs.<br \/>\n 5,000\/- (each) with default stipulations and u\/s 323\/149 of<br \/>\nIPC and sentenced to RI for six months (each) and<br \/>\nappellants   no.1,2,3,4,6,8,11,12,13      &amp;   14     additionally<br \/>\nconvicted u\/s 147 and sentenced to RI for six months and<br \/>\nfine of Rs. 1,000\/-(each) with default stipulations.      The<br \/>\nappellants no.5, 7,9, &amp; 10 additionally convicted u\/s 148 of<br \/>\nIPC and sentenced to RI for one year and fine of Rs.<br \/>\n1,000\/-(each) with default stipulations.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    Being aggrieved the appellants filed this criminal<br \/>\nappeal u\/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    The facts of the prosecution case in short are that on<br \/>\n27\/03\/2005 at about 12&#8217;00 O&#8217;clock complainant Durga<br \/>\nPrasad   (PW-6)    went    to   village    Gadholi    alongwith<br \/>\nVeerendra (PW-2), Sumer and Shivraj. They were going<br \/>\ntowards the village from the house of Man Singh. Accused<br \/>\nGangaram having Katrana, Raja Sahay having Tabal Raja<br \/>\nhaving iron rod, Mehtab having Lathi, Nandram having<br \/>\nLathi, Badan having Farsha, Ramswaroop having Lathi,<br \/>\nRam sevak s\/o Hallu having Lathi, Leeladhar having Lathi,<br \/>\nGhanshyam having Lathi, Ramsahay having Rod, Khuman<br \/>\nhaving Lathi and Shivdayal having Lathi came there and<br \/>\naccused Gangaram told that Durga Prasad made his son,<br \/>\nSarpanch.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    Due to the rivalry from Sarpanch election Gangaram<br \/>\nassaulted by katarna to Durga Prasad (PW-6) but same<br \/>\nwas stucked to Virendra PW-2. Second blow of Katarna<br \/>\nwas made on the foot of Durga Prasad. Accused Ram<br \/>\nPrasad assaulted complainant by Tabal. Appellant Badan<br \/>\nassaulted    Veerendra,   therefore,      complainant     Durga<br \/>\nPrasad-PW-6, Veerendra PW-2 and Sumer, Gaya Prasad<br \/>\nreceived injuries on the hue and cry and assuming that<br \/>\n Viredndra had been died. Accused persons ran away from<br \/>\nthe spot. Complainant Badri Prasad lodged report Ext-1<br \/>\nat police station Gopalganj District Sagar injured and<br \/>\npersons were sent for medical examination.            They were<br \/>\nexamined by Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW-4). Appellants were<br \/>\narrested and after usual investigation they were charge<br \/>\nsheeted before trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.      The trial Court framed the charges u\/s 147, 148,<br \/>\n307\/149,    323\/149,     325\/149.      The      appellant\/accused<br \/>\nabjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      On perusal of evidence on record the trial Court<br \/>\nacquitted the appellant\/accused u\/s 307\/149 of IPC.<br \/>\nHowever, they have been convicted and sentenced as<br \/>\nmentioned herein above.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that trial<br \/>\ncourt committed error in not appreciating the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord, in its proper perspective.       He further submitted<br \/>\nthat trial Court held all appellants guilty u\/s 325\/149 of<br \/>\nIPC. He further submitted that the trial court failed to see<br \/>\nthe fact that incident was occurred in village and initially<br \/>\nthere was only four appellants at the time of incident and<br \/>\nafterward    on   hue    and   cry    other     appellants   were<br \/>\nassembled     there,    therefore    there    was   no   unlawful<br \/>\nassembly, whom committed the offence in furtherance of<br \/>\ntheir   common    object.      He     further    submitted   that<br \/>\nappellants Gangaram, Badan, Ramsahay s\/o-Suraj Singh<br \/>\nand Ram Sahay s\/o.-Paran Singh were remained in<br \/>\ncustody more than 11 months and others also remained in<br \/>\ncustody not less than 5 months, therefore, in the event of<br \/>\nconviction they may be convicted for jail sentence already<br \/>\nundergone and fine.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.       Learned counsel for state justified and supported<br \/>\nthe judgment and finding of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.       I have perused the impugned judgment,       evidence<br \/>\nand other material on record. Complainant Badri Prasad<br \/>\nPW-1 admitted in para 8 of his cross examination that<br \/>\nprimarily appellant Gangaram, Mehtab, Raja and Badan<br \/>\nwere assembled and appellant Gangaram absued Durga<br \/>\nPrasad and assaulted him by Katarna which was strucked<br \/>\nto the Veerendra PW-2. Durga Prasad PW-6 in para 8 of<br \/>\nhis cross examination admitted that he and other injured<br \/>\npersons proceeded with appellants\/accused and all of<br \/>\nwere singing song of Holi (Fag). He further admitted that<br \/>\nall accused persons were not came together in beginning<br \/>\nbut they were assembled afterward.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.      By careful screening of aforementioned statement of<br \/>\ncomplainant and injured persons, it is clear on record that<br \/>\nprimarily complainant and accused persons were singing<br \/>\nsong of Holi (Fag) and thereafter Gangaram, Mehtab, Raja<br \/>\nand Badan all four were came together and assaulted<br \/>\ncomplainant and other persons and thereafter other<br \/>\naccused persons came with their weapon of offence and<br \/>\nassaulted the complainant party.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.      It is clear from aforementioned evidence on record<br \/>\nthat primarily there was no unlawful assembly and trial<br \/>\nCourt failed to appreciate these facts on record, therefore<br \/>\nthe finding of the trial Court in regard to unlawful<br \/>\nassembly      and   offence   committed   in   furtherance   of<br \/>\ncommon object of the assembly is not sustainable in the<br \/>\neye of law, therefore, these findings is liable to be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.   In aforementioned circumstances we have to assess<br \/>\nthe individual liability of appellants\/accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   Complainant    Badri   Prasad   PW-1    deposed     that<br \/>\nappellant\/accused Gangaram assaulted Durga Prasad by<br \/>\nKatarna but same Katarna was hit to the Virendra PW-2<br \/>\nbut this fact was not supported by Durga Prasad and<br \/>\nVeerendra himself.      However, Veerendra deposed that<br \/>\nwhen Gangaram assaulted Durga Prasad he came to<br \/>\nrescue and appellant Badan assaulted him by Farsha on<br \/>\nhis head.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.   Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW-4) examined the Veerendra<br \/>\nPW-2 and found a lacerated would measuring 3&#8243; x 1&#8243;,<br \/>\nbonedeep and he was advised for x-ray.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.   Dr. Ganesh Diwakar PW-5 deposed that he examined<br \/>\ninjured Virendra and took x-ray and found limier fracture<br \/>\nin frontal part of the head. X-ray report is Ext-P-10.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.   Durga    Prasad    deposed   that   appellant\/accused<br \/>\nGangaram assaulted him by Katarna on his left leg.<br \/>\nHowever, Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW-4) found lacertaed wound<br \/>\non left leg place and Dr. Ganesh Diwarkar PW-5 found<br \/>\ncommunated fracture on tibia bone of left leg. He further<br \/>\ndeposed that Khuman has assaulted by Lathi on his<br \/>\nfingers. Dr. Ganesh Diwakar PW-5 found a fracture on 4th<br \/>\nand 5th metacarpal bone of left hand, his X-ray report is<br \/>\nExt-P-11.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.   In these circumstances Virednra PW-2 received<br \/>\nfracture on his head which was caused by Badan<br \/>\nappellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.   Durga Prasad Pw-6 received fracture on Tibia bone<br \/>\nof his left leg which was caused by appellant\/accused<br \/>\n Gangaram and fracture on metacarpal bone of Durga<br \/>\nPrasad was caused by accused\/appellant Khuman.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.    In these circumstances accused Badan Gangaram<br \/>\nand Khuman are liable tobe convicted u\/s 325.               Other<br \/>\nappellant\/accused   persons      who     were   came   on    spot<br \/>\nafterward having their respective weapon of offence.<br \/>\nAccording to Dr. B.R. Agrawal injuries on the body of<br \/>\nBadri Prasad was of simple in nature and caused by hard<br \/>\nand blunt object, therefore, all other appellant\/ accused<br \/>\npersons are guilty of offence<br \/>\nu\/s 323 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.    In these circumstances, the trial Court committed<br \/>\nthe illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in<br \/>\nits proper perspective. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed.<br \/>\nThe appellants Badan, Raja &amp; RamSahay S\/o.-Suraj Singh<br \/>\nare acquitted to the charges u\/s 148 of IPC.                 The<br \/>\nappellants   Ram    Sevak,      Laxmi,    Leeladhar,   Mehtab,<br \/>\nGhanshyam, Khuman, Nandram, Ramsahay s\/o.- Paran<br \/>\nSingh and Ramswaroop are acquitted to the charges u\/s\n<\/p>\n<p>147.    All appellants are acquitted to the charges u\/s<br \/>\n325\/149, 323\/149 of IPC.          Instead appellants Badan,<br \/>\nGangaram and Khuman are convicted u\/s 325 of IPC and<br \/>\nall other appellants are convicted u\/s 323 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nin which incident was took place on the spur of moment<br \/>\nand appellants were in jail the appellant Badan 11 months<br \/>\nand 21 days, Gangaram 10 months and 21 days, appellant<br \/>\nKhuman about 4 months, if they are convicted for jail<br \/>\nsentence to period already undergone and fine of Rs.<br \/>\n2,500\/- (each) then in the ends of Justice would be met<br \/>\nout. All other appellants were in jail some are more than<br \/>\n six months like Ramsevak, Nadram, Ramsahay and all<br \/>\nother are not less than four months.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.   In these circumstances appellants Ramsevak, Shiv<br \/>\nDayal, Laxmi, Raja, Leeladhar, Mehtab, Ramsahay s\/o<br \/>\nSuraj, Ramsahay s\/o-Paran Singh, Nandram, Ramswaroop,<br \/>\nGhanshyam are convicted for the offence u\/s 323 of IPC<br \/>\nand sentenced to the jail sentence already undergone and<br \/>\nfine of Rs. 1,000\/- (each) their ends of Justice would be<br \/>\nmet out.\n<\/p>\n<p>23.   All the appellants are on bail, their bail bond and<br \/>\nsecurity bond stands discharged, if fine amount already<br \/>\ndeposited, set off will be given by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                              (G.S.SOLANKI)<br \/>\n                                   Judge\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2320\/2006 Ram Sevak and 13 others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh For the appellants : Shri Amit Jain, Advocate no.1,2,4 &amp; 11 For the appellants [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 - 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\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-24T22:43:22+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\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-24T22:43:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1395,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-24T22:43:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 - 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\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-24T22:43:22+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\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-24T22:43:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011"},"wordCount":1395,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011","name":"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-24T22:43:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sewak-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Sewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197385","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=197385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}