{"id":199009,"date":"1977-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977"},"modified":"2015-03-08T09:29:24","modified_gmt":"2015-03-08T03:59:24","slug":"ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1304, \t\t  1977 SCR  (3) 143<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nASHOK KUMAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/03\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nKAILASAM, P.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1304\t\t  1977 SCR  (3) 143\n 1977 SCC  (2) 233\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Code of Criminal Procedure,--S. 288--Scope\tof--Evidence\n\tof   witnesses\trecorded in committing court---If  could  be\n\ttransferred to Session Courts-If substantive evidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t appellant  was convicted under\t s.  302\/34,  Indian\n\tPenal  Code   and sentenced.  Statements of  two   witnesses\n\trecorded  in the  committing court were transferred  to\t the\n\trecord\tduring\ttrial under s. 288 Cr. P.C.  and  the  trial\n\tcourt treated the evidence of these witnesses as substantive\n\tevidence.  The\tHigh  Court accepted the  testimony  of\t the\n\twitnesses before the  committing Court.\n\t    In\tappeal it was contended that the statements of\twit-\n\tnesses in the committing court transferred under s. 288 were\n\tinadmissible in evidence and should not be acted upon, since\n\tno  specific portion of their contradictory  statements\t had\n\tbeen put to them in cross-examination.\n\tDismissing the appeal,\n\t    HELD:  There is no legal infirmity about the transfer of\n\tdeposition  of the witnesses to the record of  the  Sessions\n\tCourt  under  s. 288 Cr. P.C.\tIt was a legitimate  use  of\n\tdiscretion by the Sessions Judge.  Evidence recorded in\t the\n\tcommitting court is substantive evidence in this case and is\n\tadmissible. [147 E-F]\n\t    Section  288  Cr. P.C. which provides  for\ttransfer  of\n\tevidence  recorded  in the committing  court  under  certain\n\tcircumstances is subject inter alia to the provisions of  s.\n\t145  of the Evidence Act.  Provisions of the latter  section\n\thave been substantially complied with in this case.  [147 E]\n\t    In\tthe instant case after drawing the attention of\t the\n\twitnesses to their contradictory statements recorded by\t the\n\tpolice, the statements recorded by the committing Magistrate\n\twere  read out to the witnesses who did not deny  have\tmade\n\tthem but only explained that they had deposed in that manner\n\tunder threat and pressure from the police.  [147 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal NO\t 246<br \/>\n\tof 1976.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    (Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment\t and   Order<br \/>\n\tdated  5-12-1975 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal  Appeal<br \/>\n\tNo. 111 of 1974).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tR.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli, for the appellant.<br \/>\n\tG.L. Sanghi and M.N. Shroff, for the respondent.<br \/>\n\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n\t    GOSWAMI,  J.&#8211;This appeal by special leave\tis  directed<br \/>\n\tagainst the judgment of the Delhi High Court confirming\t the<br \/>\n\tconviction  of\tthe appellant under section  302\/34,  Indian<br \/>\n\tPenal Code, and sentence of imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t144<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    Ashok  Kumar  aged\tabout 17  years\t and   his   younger<br \/>\n\tbrother, Vijay Kumar, below the age of 16 years were charge-<br \/>\n\tsheeted for an offence under section 302\/34 IPC for  causing<br \/>\n\tthe  death  of Rajinder Kumar aged about  23  years.   Vijay<br \/>\n\tKumar was sent for trial under the Children Act,. 1960,\t and<br \/>\n\tis not, therefore, before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    In\tJune  1971 Jai Bhagwan, father of the  accused,\t had<br \/>\n\tcomplained  to\tthe police against  the\t deceased,  Rajinder<br \/>\n\tKumar,\talleging that he had kidnapped his daughter,   Saroj<br \/>\n\tKumari.\t  It is said  that  Saroj Kumari was recovered\tfrom<br \/>\n\tthe  company of\t Rajinder  Kumar  at Ahmedabad and  Rajinder<br \/>\n\tKumar was charged for  offences\t under sections 366 and 376,<br \/>\n\tIndian\tPenal Code, and the case was pending on the date  of<br \/>\n\toccurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The\t prosecution  case is that on May  22,\t1973,  Hukum<br \/>\n\tChand  (PW 1), father of the deceased, Rajinder\t Kumar,\t was<br \/>\n\tcoming back from the Fountain in Chandni Chowk on H.C.\tRoad<br \/>\n\tand took a turn towards right leading to Mor Sarai when.  he<br \/>\n\tsaw the accused, Ashok Kumar, and his brother, Vijay  Kumar,<br \/>\n\thaving surrounded his son Rajinder Kumar.  He also saw\tthat<br \/>\n\tAshok Kumar caught hold of the hand of Rajinder Kumar  while<br \/>\n\this younger  brother  stood behind him in front of the\tgate<br \/>\n\tof  Mor Sarai.\tHaving seen this he walked quickly and\twhen<br \/>\n\the  was\t at a distance of four or five paces  from  them  he<br \/>\n\theard  Ashok  Kumar and his brother,  Vijay  Kumar.  telling<br \/>\n\tRajinder   Kumar  that they would avenge the  kidnapping  of<br \/>\n\ttheir sister no matter whether the court might punish him or<br \/>\n\tnot. Hukam Chand then saw both the brothers taking out their<br \/>\n\tknives. Accused Ashok Kumar struck a blow on the left  cheek<br \/>\n\tof Rajinder Kumar.  Vijay Kumar struck one blow on  Rajinder<br \/>\n\tKumar  which was warded off by him as a result of which\t his<br \/>\n\tright  forearm\twas struck by the knife on the back  of\t his<br \/>\n\tpalm.\tRajinder Kumar tried to run away but was pursued  by<br \/>\n\tthe  two  brothers and\twas  overpowered.   They  then\tgave<br \/>\n\tseveral blows on the back of his waist, on left abdomen\t and<br \/>\n\ton  the right thigh.  As a result of  these  blows  Rajinder<br \/>\n\tKumar fell down on the footpath on the side of the  quarters<br \/>\n\tof  Mor\t Sarai.\t Accused Ashok Kumar ran  away\ttowards\t the<br \/>\n\tstation along with his brother.\t Hukam Chand sent for a taxi<br \/>\n\tand   took Rajinder Kumar in it to the Irwin Hospital  where<br \/>\n\the was examined by Dr. U. Kaul (PW 12) who found the follow-<br \/>\n\ting injuries on his person :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t  1. Stab wound 4&#8243; x 2&#8243; left  inter scapular<br \/>\n\t\t      region\twith  surrounding surgical emphysema.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t       2. Stab left lumber region 2&#8243; x 2&#8243;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t       3. Stab left thigh 2&#8243; x 1&#8243;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t       4. Stab left cheek 2&#8243; x 2&#8243;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t       5. Stab left hand 4&#8243; x 1&#8243; on the dorsum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\tConstable,  Vijay  Kumar,  (PW 7) who was on  duty  at\t the<br \/>\n\tIrwin  Hospital informed the Police Station, Kotwali,  about<br \/>\n\tthe admission of Rajinder Kumar in the Hospital.  Constable,<br \/>\n\tRam Saran (PW<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t145<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14)  made an entry in the daily diary about the\t report\t re-<br \/>\n\tceived\tfrom  the irwin Hospital.  He sent a  copy  of\tthis<br \/>\n\treport\tto  S.I. Dewan Singh (PW 20) who  proceeded  to\t the<br \/>\n\tHospital.  When\t PW  20 arrived. Rajinder Kumar was not in a<br \/>\n\tposition to make a statement  and he recorded the  statement<br \/>\n\tof Hukam Chand (Ex. PW 1\/A) at about 8.40 P.M. which is\t the<br \/>\n\tfirst  information  report registered under  section  307\/34<br \/>\n\tIPC.   According to the Doctor the punctured injury  at\t the<br \/>\n\tleft inter scapular region was sufficient to cause his death<br \/>\n\tin the ordinary course of nature.  On the death of  Rajinder<br \/>\n\tKumar at 11.35 P.M., the same night, the section under which<br \/>\n\tthe  case was registered was altered to section 302 IPC\t and<br \/>\n\tinvestigation  proceeded accordingly.  Names of Ashok  Kumar<br \/>\n\tand Vijay Kumar appeared in the first information report, as<br \/>\n\tthe   assailams.  The  first  information report  also\tdis-<br \/>\n\tclosed\tthat there was another person, Mohar &#8216;Singh  (PW  2)<br \/>\n\twith  Hukam .Chand.  The accused, Ashok Kumar, was  arrested<br \/>\n\ton May 25, 1973, near Jat Dharamshala  in  Jamuna Bazar.  It<br \/>\n\tis said that on the following day Ashok Kumar made a  state-<br \/>\n\tment  before Inspector Sardar Singh,  Station  House   Offi-<br \/>\n\tcer,  P.S. Kotwali, Delhi (PW 21) in pursuance of  which  on<br \/>\n\tMay  28, 1973, a blood stained knife (Ex. P-7)\twas   recov-<br \/>\n\tered.\tEvidence  was also led by the prosecution  to  prove<br \/>\n\trecovery of a  shirt  and pantaloons having stains of  blood<br \/>\n\talthough  these had already been washed from the  person  of<br \/>\n\tthe  accused, Ashok Kumar, when he was arrested on  May\t 25,<br \/>\n\t1973.  The serological\treport\tshowed\tthe origin of  these<br \/>\n\tstains\tas human blood.\t At the trial not only\tHukam  Chand<br \/>\n\tgave  evidence\tas an eye witness, but Mohar Singh  (PW\t 2),<br \/>\n\tRajinder Kumar Jain (PW 3) and Puran Singh (PW 4) were\talso<br \/>\n\tproduced as eye witnesses.  While PW 1, Hukam Chand, contin-<br \/>\n\tued  to tell his melancholy story, PWs 3 and 4 did not\tsup-<br \/>\n\tport the prosecution and were accordingly declared  hostile.<br \/>\n\tIt  was shown in the course of their cross-examination\tthat<br \/>\n\tthey  had  earlier during the investigation made  statements<br \/>\n\tas eye witnesses to  the  occurrence. The statements of\t PWs<br \/>\n\t3  and 4 which were recorded in\t the  committing court\twere<br \/>\n\ttransferred  to the  record during  the trial under  section<br \/>\n\t288,   Criminal Procedure&#8217; Code.  In  the committing   court<br \/>\n\tthese  witnesses had stated that they had seen\tthe  accused<br \/>\n\tassaulting the deceased with a knife.  P.W. 2, Mohar  Singh,<br \/>\n\twas not examined before the committing court.<br \/>\n\tThe accused denied the charge and stated that he was arrest-<br \/>\n\ted  by the police in Agra on May 24, 1973,  and\t not on\t the<br \/>\n\tfollowing  day\tat  Jat Dhararashala  as  alleged   by\t the<br \/>\n\tprosecution.   After examining the evidence of\tthe  defence<br \/>\n\twitnesses  as  well as the station diary entries  about\t the<br \/>\n\tdeparture  of the Head Constable. Manohar Lal and  Constable<br \/>\n\tBalbir Singh, to outside districts  the\t Sessions Judge held<br \/>\n\tthat  it was &#8220;not at all improbable&#8221; that the two  policemen<br \/>\n\taccompanied  by\t Jai Bhagwan went to Agra  and\tbrought\t the<br \/>\n\taccused\t from  there. The Sessions Judge also did  not\trely<br \/>\n\tupon the disclosure statement made by the  accused and\talso<br \/>\n\tignored\t the recovery of the knife as being in pursuance  of<br \/>\n\tthat disclosure statement.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t146<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\tThe Sessions Judge observed that it  was very  unusual in  a<br \/>\n\tmurder\tcase  that recovery of the offending weapon  was  so<br \/>\n\tbelated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     The trial court convicted the accused on the  testimony<br \/>\n\tof Hukam Chand (PW 1) and accepted the evidence of PWs 3 and<br \/>\n\t4 recorded in the committing court.  Referring to PWs 3\t and<br \/>\n\t4, the trial court observed as follows :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t      &#8220;I treat the evidence of PW 3 Rajinder<br \/>\n\t\t      Kumar   Jain  and PW 4  Puran  as\t substantive<br \/>\n\t\t      evidence\tunder  section 288 Cr. P.C.  I\tfind<br \/>\n\t\t      abundant corroboration thereof in the testimo-<br \/>\n\t\t      ny  of  PW 1  Hukam   Chand.   This   evidence<br \/>\n\t\t      treated as substantive evidence under  section<br \/>\n\t\t      288 Cr. P.C. taken into consideration with the<br \/>\n\t\t      testimony\t of  PW\t 1 Hukam  Chand\t provides  a<br \/>\n\t\t      complete\tpicture by ocular evidence  of\twhat<br \/>\n\t\t      happened to the victim Rajinder Kumar on\tthat<br \/>\n\t\t      fateful evening at the hands of Ashok  accused<br \/>\n\t\t      and his brother Vijay.  I accept this part  of<br \/>\n\t\t      the testimony&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\tWith regard to the evidence of PW 1 the trial court observed<br \/>\n\tas follows :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t      &#8220;In the case before me Hukam Chand  is<br \/>\n\t\t      a\t father\t of  the deceased.   He\t admits\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      enmity   on the  part of the  accused  towards<br \/>\n\t\t      the  deceased.  He mentioned the name  of\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      accused in the FIR and gave complete  sequence<br \/>\n\t\t      of events.  He did not lose any time.  He\t had<br \/>\n\t\t      no   time\t to manufacture things so as  to  be<br \/>\n\t\t      incorporated  in the report. This is a  strong<br \/>\n\t\t      circumstance in  favour of the prosecution  in<br \/>\n\t\t      this case&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t    The High Court, as stated earlier, confirmed the convic-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\ttion  by accepting the testimony of Hukam Chand as  well  as<br \/>\n\tthe  statements\t made by PWs 3 and 4 before  the  committing<br \/>\n\tcourt  in which they  had clearly supported the\t prosecution<br \/>\n\tcase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tSince  the accused had opportunity to cross  examine<br \/>\n\tthe PWs 3 and 4 in the committing court the fact that he had<br \/>\n\tnot actually cross-examined these witnesses is of no  conse-<br \/>\n\tquence.\t  Apart from  that during the Sessions\ttrial  their<br \/>\n\texplanation was that they had made the statements before the<br \/>\n\tcommitting  court  under  the threat of\t the  police.\tThis<br \/>\n\texplanation had been rejected  by  both\t the  courts.<br \/>\n\t    Mr. Kohli submits that PWs 3 and 4 were not mentioned in<br \/>\n\tthe  first  information\t report although  PW  1\t mentioned,.<br \/>\n\ttherein,  at threeplaces about the presence of\tMohar  Singh<br \/>\n\t(PW  2)\t who  was not even examined  before  the  committing<br \/>\n\tcourt.\t Since PW 2 denied having seen the  occurrence,\t his<br \/>\n\tevidence  is of no assistance and the fact that he was\tcon-<br \/>\n\ttradicted  by  his  previous statement\t made\tbefore\t the<br \/>\n\tpolice only dubs him as an unreliable witness.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t147<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t\tSo  far as PWs 3 and 4 are concerned, we do not\t see<br \/>\n\tmuch  force  in\t the contention that their  names  were\t not<br \/>\n\tmentioned  in the first information report.  It is  possible<br \/>\n\tthat  even  if they had seen the occurence from\t some  other<br \/>\n\tpoint,\tPW 1 hastening away to the Hospital might not  have,<br \/>\n\tnoticed\t them.\tBesides, when S.I. Diwan Singh (PW 20)\twent<br \/>\n\tto the place of occurrence with PW 1 (Hukarn Chand) at about<br \/>\n\t9.45 P.M. the same night he found a large crowd there. PW 20<br \/>\n\tstated that he recorded at that time the statements of Mohar<br \/>\n\tSingh  (PW 2), Rajinder Kumar Jain (PW 3) and  Puran   Singh<br \/>\n\t(PW  4).   The omission of the names of PWs 3 and 4  in\t the<br \/>\n\tfirst information report lodged at 8.45 P.M. cannot,  there-<br \/>\n\tfore,  be of much significance to reject their testimony  on<br \/>\n\tthat score.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tNext, Mr. Kohli submits that the  statements<br \/>\n\tof PWs 3  and  4 recorded in the committing court and trans-<br \/>\n\tferred under section 288, Criminal Procedure Code, is  inad-<br \/>\n\tmissible  and  should not be acted upon, since\tno  specific<br \/>\n\tportion\t of their contradictory statements  had been put  to<br \/>\n\tthem in the course of their cross-examination by the  public<br \/>\n\tprosecutor.   We  find that after drawing the  attention  of<br \/>\n\tthese  two witnesses to their contradictory  statements\t re-<br \/>\n\tcorded\tby the police with regard to their having  seen\t the<br \/>\n\tassault\t  which they  denied, the entire respective   state-<br \/>\n\tments  recorded by the\tcommitting magistrate in Hindi\twere<br \/>\n\tread  out to the witness who did not deny to have  made\t the<br \/>\n\tsame but only explained that they had deposed in that manner<br \/>\n\tunder threat and pressure from the police.<br \/>\n\t\tSection 288, Criminal Procedure Code, which provides<br \/>\n\tfor  transfer of evidence recorded in the  committing  court<br \/>\n\tunder certain circumstances, is subject, inter alia, to\t the<br \/>\n\tprovisions  of\tsection\t 145 of the Evidence  Act,  and\t the<br \/>\n\tprovisions  of\tthe latter section have\t been  substantially<br \/>\n\tcomplied  with in this\tcase.  Under the circumstances there<br \/>\n\tis  no legal infirmity about the transfer of the  deposition<br \/>\n\tof  the\t two witnesses to the record of the  Sessions  Court<br \/>\n\tunder  section\t288, Criminal Procedure Code, and it  was  a<br \/>\n\tlegitimate  use\t of  discretion by  the\t Sessions  Judge  in<br \/>\n\tadopting   this\t  course.  Their evidence  recorded  in\t the<br \/>\n\tcommitting  court is substantive evidence in this case\t and<br \/>\n\tis clearly admissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tRajinder  Kumar\t Jain (PW 3) had written  an  inland<br \/>\n\tletter\twhich  the Inspector General of Police\treceived  on<br \/>\n\tJanuary\t 18, 1974, complaining about the police\t torture  in<br \/>\n\tthreatening  him  to  give evidence in the  court.   He\t was<br \/>\n\texamined before the Sessions Judge on January 19, 1974, when<br \/>\n\the,  for  the first time, denied in court to have  seen\t the<br \/>\n\toccurrence.  He had been examined in the committing court on<br \/>\n\tNovember  21,  1973, about six months after  the  occurrence<br \/>\n\twhen he had made no complaint about police torture and\tgave<br \/>\n\tevidence  as an eye witness to\tthe occurrence.\t  The  trial<br \/>\n\tcourt  was,  therefore perfectly justified in not  accepting<br \/>\n\tthe  belated explanation of PWs 3 and 4 about police  threat<br \/>\n\tunder which  alone they\t stated that they had supported\t the<br \/>\n\tprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t148<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    Although  the High Court was not prepared to accept\t the<br \/>\n\tdefence case about the arrest of the accused in Agra, it  is<br \/>\n\tnot necessary to pursue the matter further.  It is also\t not<br \/>\n\tnecessary  to deal with .the recovery of the knife  and\t the<br \/>\n\tblood  stained\tclothes about which the High Court  was\t not<br \/>\n\tprepared to accept the reasons given  by  the Sessions Judge<br \/>\n\tfor discarding that evidence.  We agree\t with  the  Sessions<br \/>\n\tJudge  that it was unusual for the police to delay  recovery<br \/>\n\tof  the\t blood-stained knife in a murder case.\t But   since<br \/>\n\tthe   two courts have relied upon the evidence of the  three<br \/>\n\teye  witnesses, it is not necessary to consider whether\t the<br \/>\n\tHigh  Court  was  right\t in differing from the views of\t the<br \/>\n\ttrial  court in the matter of the recovery of the knife\t and<br \/>\n\tthe clothes.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t After having perused the entire evidence, we see no  reason<br \/>\n\tto interfere with the conviction in this case.\tIn  the result<br \/>\n\tthe appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tP.B.R.\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t149<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1304, 1977 SCR (3) 143 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/03\/1977 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KAILASAM, P.S. CITATION: 1977 AIR 1304 1977 SCR (3) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 - 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\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\" \/>\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=\"1977-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-08T03:59:24+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\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-08T03:59:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2204,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-08T03:59:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 - 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\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-08T03:59:24+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\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977","datePublished":"1977-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-08T03:59:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977"},"wordCount":2204,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977","name":"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-08T03:59:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-state-delhi-administration-on-7-march-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 7 March, 1977"}]},{"@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\/199009","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=199009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}