{"id":198073,"date":"2010-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-22T06:59:12","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T01:29:12","slug":"appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Appearance vs Unknown on 4 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\/462\/2002\t 14\/ 14\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. 462 of 2002\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\nMAGANBHAI\nBALUBHAI KOLI PATEL \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRUSHABH SHAH FOR MR.JB PARDIWALA\nfor\nAppellant. \nMR M.R.MENGDEY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\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: 04\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellant-convict was prosecuted for the offences
\npunishable under Sections 323, 504 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code
\n[ IP Code  for short] and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act,
\nfor  allegedly  committing murder of his mother-in-law Kashiben
\nRamabhai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad camp at
\nValsad, by judgment dated 6.4.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No.
\n59\/1999, convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable
\nunder Section 302 IP Code and sentenced him to undergo life
\nimprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000\/-, in default thereof to
\nundergo R.I for one month, but, acquitted the appellant-accused for
\nthe offences punishable under Sections 323 & 504 IP Code and
\nSection 135 of the Bombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tOn
\nthe basis of F.I.R lodged by Ushaben Maganbhai, wife of the
\nappellant, offence was registered and investigation was started. On
\ncompletion  of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed
\nagainst the appellant in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.Valsad, for the
\naforesaid offences. As the  offence punishable under Section 302 is
\nexclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to
\nthe Sessions Court, Valsad, for trial, where it was numbered as
\nSessions Case No. 59\/1999.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over for
\ntrial, framed charge against the accused at Exh.1, of the offences
\npunishable under Sections 323, 504 & 302 of IP Code  and Section
\n135 of the Bombay Police Act. The charge was read over and explained
\nto the appellant-accused,  who pleaded not guilty to the same and
\nclaimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, adduced evidence to
\nprove its case against the appellant. The prosecution also produced
\ndocumentary evidence such as complaint  lodged by Ushaben at Exh.23,
\npanchnama of place of occurrence at Exh.16, inquest panchnama which
\nwas held on the body of the deceased at Exh.21, panchnama of
\nweapon-knife recovered at the instance of the accused at Exh.18 etc.
\nin support of its case against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAfter
\nrecording of evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the learned
\nJudge  explained to the appellant incriminating circumstances
\nappearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and
\nhis further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure was recorded. In his further statement, the
\nappellant-accused denied generally all the incriminating
\ncircumstances put to him by the trial Court and stated that he is
\ninnocent. He has also stated in his further statement that before
\nabout six months of the incident, he was serving at Surat and on the
\nday of the incident, he was residing at Surat and has been falsely
\nimplicated. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
\nand the learned advocate for the accused, as well as appreciating the
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the
\naccused and sentenced him, as mentioned hereinabove, giving rise to
\ninstant appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tWe
\nhave heard learned advocate Mr.Rushabh Shah appearing for learned
\nadvocate Mr. Pardiwala, for the appellant, and learned A.P.P.
\nMr.Mengdey for the State, at length and in great detail. We have also
\nperused the record and proceedings of the case.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nis submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shah that the prosecution has
\nrelied upon a solitary eye witness Ushaben Maganbhai Patel (PW.6,
\nExh.22), who was  the daughter of the deceased and was an interested
\nwitness. He has also submitted that the alleged incident occurred at
\nabout 8.30 P.M and the F.I.R was lodged after about four-and-a-half
\nhours and no satisfactory explanation with regard to late lodging of
\nthe FIR has been given. He has further submitted that the eye witness
\nhas not been able to identify the weapon and all the witnesses, whose
\nstatements were recorded during the course of investigation, have not
\nbeen examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court
\ncommitted an error in relying upon the sole evidence of daughter of
\nthe deceased and hence, the impugned judgment is required to be set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAs
\nagainst these arguments, the learned A.P.P has submitted that the
\nsole eye witness was also wife of the appellant and, therefore, she
\nwould not falsely implicate her husband and the learned trial Judge
\nwas justified in relying upon her evidence. He has also submitted
\nthat there is no unnecessary delay in lodging the FIR, as after the
\nincident, the informant, who was present at the scene of the offence,
\nwas frightened and she left her house with her minor children and
\nimmediately thereafter lodged the complaint. Therefore, looking to
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be considered that
\nthere was any unnecessary delay in lodging the FIR. He has also
\nsubmitted that simply because the weapon allegedly used in the
\ncommission of the offence was not  identified by the witness, cannot
\nbe a ground to acquit the accused, as the medical evidence clearly
\nestablished that the death was homicidal and committed with a weapon
\nlike knife. He has further submitted that it is for the prosecution
\nto examination the witnesses and there is no law that the witnesses,
\nwhose statements are recorded during th course of investigation, have
\nto be examined to prove the case. He has also submitted that looking
\nto the evidence produced before the trial Court, the learned Judge of
\nthe trial Court was justified in relying upon the evidence of the
\nsole eye witness. The learned A.P.P lastly submitted that the appeal,
\nwhich lacks merits, should be dismissed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThis
\nCourt has undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all
\nvital features of the case and the entire evidence on record with
\nreference to broad and a reasonable probabilities of the case.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nfact that deceased Kashiben died a homicidal death is not in dispute.
\n\tAs regards the nature of death of deceased Kashiben, the prosecution
\nhas examined Dr.Babubhai Chhanabhai Patel as PW.1 at Exh.6 and
\nproduced post-mortem report at Exh.9. It appears from the evidence of
\nthe Doctor that the deceased had sustained about 8 external injuries
\nand the internal injuries were corresponding to the external
\ninjuries. According to him, the injuries were possible by knife and
\nthe injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
\ncause death. The Doctor has been extensively cross-examined on behalf
\nof the accused, but, he has not been able to elicit that the injuries
\nfound on the dead body of the deceased were not homicidal in nature.
\nThe post-mortem report (Exh.9) also indicates the external injuries
\nand the cause of death was shock resulting by haemorrhage. It is
\nnobody’s case that the deceased died suicidal death or natural death
\nor accidental death. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Judge
\nof the trial Court that it is proved by the prosecution that the
\ndeceased  died a homicidal death, is eminently just and is hereby
\nupheld.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThis
\nbrings the Court to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution
\nfor establishing charge levelled against the appellant. It may be
\nstated that in order to bring home the guilt, prosecution has
\nexamined sole eye witness Ushaben Maganbhai Patel, wife of the
\nappellant. Her testimony is recorded at Exh.22. Before considering
\nher testimony, it would be relevant to notice the principles of law,
\nwhich should be borne in mind by a Court when the case rests on the
\ntestimony of sole eye witness. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence
\nAct, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in
\nany case, be required for the proof of any fact. The law enshrined in
\nSection 134 does not require any particular number of witnesses to
\nprove a certain fact. It is not the number of witnesses examined  nor
\nthe quantity of  evidence adduced by the prosecution  that counts. It
\nis quality that counts. It is not necessary in law that more than one
\nwitness should be examined to prove a fact, but, unless the witness
\nis very reliable, the Court would ordinarily look for corroboration.
\nWhen evidence of sole witness is found to be cogent and trustworthy
\nand corroborated by medical evidence on record, conviction of an
\naccused can be recorded. There is no rule of law that the testimony
\nof a single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction can be
\nbased on such evidence if believed. The testimony of a single
\nwitness, if it is straightforward, cogent and if believed, is
\nsufficient to prove the prosecution case and conviction can be made
\non the testimony of such a single witness.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt
\nis not in dispute that except PW.6 Ushaben, there was no other eye
\nwitness to the incident. The evidence of PW.6 Ushaben Maganbhai,
\nexamined at Exh.22, indicates that on the day of the incident at
\nabout 8.00 P.M, the appellant-accused came to the house and after
\nhaving dinner, started abusing and beating her. Therefore, her mother
\ndeceased Kashiben intervened and so, the appellant assaulted deceased
\nKashiben with knife and inflicted knife blows to her. The panchnama
\nof the scene of offence (Exh.16) indicates that the incident occurred
\nwithin the four corners of the house. It is also not in dispute that
\nPW.6 Ushaben was married to the appellant and they were residing with
\ndeceased Kashiben, who was the mother of Ushaben and mother-in-law of
\nthe appellant. The evidence of PW.2 Kamleshbhai Rammohanbhai Desai,
\nwho is examined at Exh.15 and the panchnama of the scene of offence
\nhave supported the prosecution case. Therefore, it is proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt that the incident occurred in the house where the
\nappellant with witness Ushaben and the deceased was residing. No
\nexplanation is offered by the appellant in this regard in his further
\nstatement recorded under Section 313 of the Code. According to the
\nappellant, at the time of the incident, he was away at Surat and was
\nnot present in the house, but, no evidence in that regard has been
\nproduced before the trial Court. Therefore, this defence cannot be
\naccepted at the appellate stage. This evidence clearly indicates that
\nthe incident occurred in the house where the deceased and the
\nappellant were staying and no one witnessed the incident except the
\nfamily member Ushaben.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nevidence of PW.6 Ushaben Maganbhai indicates that on account of
\nassault on her mother, she  got frightened and ran away with her
\nchildren and went to the house of the Sarpanch. Thereafter, the
\npolice was called and she along with others went to her house at
\nabout 1.30 late night. The FIR (Exh.23) lodged by her also indicates
\nthat the appellant assaulted the deceased with knife and caused
\nseveral injuries. It is true that there is no other eye witness to
\nthe incident indicating involvement of the appellant. However, it is
\nalso a fact that the incident occurred within the four corners of the
\nhouse. Therefore, naturally no outsider would notice the happening in
\nthe house. It is also a fact that the sole eye witness is also
\nrelated to the appellant and nothing is brought on record to indicate
\nthat she has falsely implicated the appellant. On re-assessment of
\nthe testimony of the sole eye witness, this Court finds that her
\ntestimony is cogent and trustworthy. Though she was subjected to
\nsearching cross-examination by the defence, nothing could be brought
\non record so as to make dent in her claim that the appellant
\nassaulted deceased Kashiben with knife and inflicted knife blows.
\nThus, the conviction of the appellant can be and should be sustained
\non the basis of reliable evidence of sole eye witness Ushaben, which
\nis corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Over and above the
\ncorroboration to the testimony of sole eye witness by medical
\nevidence on record, this Court finds that the testimony of sole eye
\nwitness also stands corroborated by independent evidence of witness
\nKamleshbhai Rammohanbhai Desai, PW.2, examined at Exh.15, and the
\npanchnama of the scene of offence.\n<\/p>\n
13.
\nThe accused has tried to raise a defence that the witness had illicit
\nrelations with one Chiman Moti and he was responsible for the death
\nof the deceased. But, this fact has not been stated by the appellant
\nin his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code.
\nTherefore, in our view, the defence raised by the accused does not
\nappear to be bona fide.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIt
\nalso appears from the evidence of eye witness Ushaben that on account
\n of assault by the accused she got frightened and left the house with
\nher minor children and, therefore, there was delay in lodging the
\nFIR. In view of the fact that the victim was her mother and the
\nassailant was her husband, it is quite natural that she would have
\ntaken some time in pursuing the matter. Thus, it cannot be said that
\nthere was unnecessary delay in lodging the FIR, as alleged by the
\nappellant and, therefore, this submission cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAs
\nthe medical evidence clearly indicates that the injuries were caused
\nby knife, in our view, simply non-identification of weapon used in
\nthe offence would not be a ground to give benefit of doubt to the
\naccused and to acquit him.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAs
\nregards the submission that all the witnesses, whose statements were
\nrecorded during the course of investigation are not examined, we are
\nof the view that it is for the prosecution to examine the witnesses
\nand an accused has no right to compel the prosecution to examine any
\nparticular number of witnesses. It is the quality of evidence, which
\nis relevant and not the quantity. Therefore, this submission cannot
\nbe countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIn
\nview of the above discussion, the trial Court was justified in
\nrelying upon the evidence of PW.6 Ushaben Maganbhai Patel (Exh.22) to
\nconvict the appellant and no interference is warranted with the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIn
\nthe result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. The judgment
\nrendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad Camp at
\nValsad, in Sessions Case No. 59\/1999, on 6.4.2002 is hereby
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[A.L.Dave,J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\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 4 March, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/462\/2002 14\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 462 of 2002 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-198073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppearance vs Unknown on 4 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-4-march-2010\" \/>\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 4 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-4-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-22T01:29:12+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=\"12 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-4-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T01:29:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2334,\"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-4-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T01:29:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 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-4-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-22T01:29:12+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T01:29:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010"},"wordCount":2334,"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-4-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010","name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T01:29:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 4 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:\/\/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\/198073","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=198073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}