{"id":201443,"date":"1961-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961"},"modified":"2015-09-09T11:59:31","modified_gmt":"2015-09-09T06:29:31","slug":"gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961","title":{"rendered":"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 600, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 440<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGOPAL VINAYAK GODSE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/01\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  600\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 440\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1976 SC1552\t (4)\n R\t    1977 SC1096\t (6)\n RF\t    1980 SC2147\t (72)\n R\t    1982 SC1439\t (6)\n F\t    1983 SC 855\t (2,4,15,18)\n R\t    1984 SC 739\t (5)\n F\t    1985 SC1050\t (5,11)\n RF\t    1989 SC 653\t (12)\n RF\t    1990 SC1396\t (6)\n E\t    1991 SC1792\t (4,9,10,11,12,17)\n R\t    1991 SC2296\t (6,8)\n\n\nACT:\nHabeas Corpus-Sentence-Transportation for  life-Imprisonment\nfor life, if equivalent to any fixed term-Remissions,  right\nto--When can be taken into consideration-Indian Penal  Code,\n1860 (XLV of 1860), s. 53A-Code of Criminal Procedure,\t1898\n(V of 1898), s. 401.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioner was convicted in 1949 and sentenced to trans-\nportation  for life.  He earned remission of 2963  days\t and\nadding\tthis to the term of imprisonment actually served  by\nthe  petitioner\t the  aggregate\t exceeded  20  years.\t The\npetitioner contended that his further detention in jail\t was\nillegal and prayed for being set at liberty:\nHeld, that the petitioner had not yet acquired any right  to\nbe released.  A sentence of transportation for life could be\nundergone by a prisoner by way of rigorous imprisonment\t for\nlife  in a designated prison in India.\tSection 53A  of\t the\nIndian\tPenal  Code,  introduced by  the  Code\tof  Criminal\nProcedure  (Amendment) Act, 1955, provided that\t any  person\nsentenced  to transportation for life before  the  Amendment\nAct  would be treated as sentenced to rigorous\timprisonment\nfor  life.   A prisoner sentenced to life  imprisonment\t was\nbound  to serve the remainder of his life in  prison  unless\nthe  sentence  was commuted or remitted by  the\t appropriate\nauthority.   Such a sentence could not be equated  with\t any\nfixed term.  The rules framed under the Prisons Act entitled\nsuch a prisoner to earn remissions but such remissions\twere\nto  be taken into account only towards the end of the  term.\nThe  question  of  remissions  was  exclusively\t within\t the\nprovince of the appropriate Government.\t In the present case\nthough\tthe Government had made certain remissions under  s.\n401  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it had not  remitted\nthe entire sentence.\nPandit\tKishori Lal v. King-Emperor, (1944) L.R. 72  I.A.  ,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 305\/1960.
\nPetition  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India\t for
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner in person.\n<\/p>\n
H.   N.\t Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India\tpond
\nR. H. Dhebar, for the respondents,
\n441<\/span>
\n1961.  January 12.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nSUBBA  RAO,  J.-This  is a; petition under Art.\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution  for  an order in the nature of  habeas  corpus
\nclaiming that the petitioner has justly served his  sentence
\nand should, therefore, be released.\n<\/p>\n
On  February 10, 1949, the Judge, Special Court,  Red  Fort,
\nDelhi,\tconvicted  the petitioner for offences under  s.  3,
\nread  with s. 6, of the Explosive Substances Act,  under  s.
\n4(b)  and s. 5 thereof, I and for murder under s. 302,\tread
\nwith  s.  109, of the Indian Penal Code; for the  first\t two
\noffences   he  was  sentenced  to  seven   years’   rigorous
\nimprisonment   and   five   years   rigorous\timprisonment
\nrespectively and for the third offence to transportation for
\nlife   and   all  the  sentences  were\t directed   to\t run
\nconcurrently.\tAfter conviction he was imprisoned in  jails
\nin the State of Punjab till May 19, 1950, and thereafter  he
\nwas transferred to Nasik Road Central Prison in the State of
\nBombay\t(now Maharashtra).  According to the petitioner,  he
\nhas  earned  the following remissions up  to  September\t 30,
\n1960:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Ordinary remission\t\t      ...  836 days\n     (b)  Special remission\t\t      ...  206 days\n     (c)  Physical training remission\t      ...  113 days\n     (d)  Literary remission\t\t      ...  108 days\n     (e)  Annual good conduct remission\t      ...  250 days\n     (f)  State remission\t\t      ...  1380 days\n<\/pre>\n
The  total of the remissions earned is 2,893 days;  but\t the
\nState in its counter-affidavit state that the petitioner has
\nearned\tup  to the said date remission of 2,963\t days.\t The
\nfigure given by the State may be accepted as correct for the
\npurpose of this petition.  If the amount of remissions\tthus
\nearned was added to the term of imprisonment the  petitioner
\nhas  actually served, the aggregate would exceed  20  years,
\nand  even  if only the State remission was added to  it,  it
\nwould exceed 15 years.\tThe petitioner, claiming that  under
\nthe  relevant  provisions  governing  his  imprisonment\t his
\nfurther\t detention in jail would be illegal, prays  that  he
\nmight  be  set\tat  liberty  forthwith.\t  The  State,  while
\nconceding that he has earned remissions
\n56<\/span>
\n442<\/span>
\n&mounting  to 2,963 days, alleged in the  counter  affidavit
\nthat  the  remissions  earned  did not\tentitle\t him  to  be
\nreleased  and  that  under the rules  the  question  of\t his
\nrelease\t would\tbe  considered only after  he  completed  15
\nyears’ actual imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioner argued his case in person.  He rejected\t the
\nhelp of an advocate as amicus curiae to assist him.  In\t the
\ncircumstances,\this  argument was based\t more  on  emotional
\nplane than on legal basis.  But as the liberty of a  citizen
\nis  involved, we have gone through the\trelevant  provisions
\nand  considered the possible contentions that may be  raised
\non the basis of the said provisions.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question that falls to be  decided\tis  whether,
\nunder the relevant statutory provisions, an accused who\t was
\nsentenced  to  transportation  for life,  could\t legally  be
\nimprisoned in one of the jails in India; and if so, what was
\nthe  term  for which he could be so  imprisoned.   We  shall
\nbriefly\t notice the relevant provisions of the Indian  Penal
\nCode before it was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure
\n(Amendment)  Act  XXVI of 1955.\t Section 53  of\t the  Indian
\nPenal  Code  set  out six  different  punishments  to  which
\noffenders were liable.\tThe second of those punishments\t was
\ntransportation and the fourth was imprisonment which was  of
\ntwo  descriptions, namely, rigorous and simple.\t The word  ”
\ntransportation\t” was not defined in the Indian Penal  Code,
\nbut it was for life with two exceptions.  Under s. 55 of the
\nIndian\tPenal  Code, ” In every case in\t which\tsentence  of
\ntransportation\t for  life  shall  have\t been  passed,\t the
\nProvincial  Government\tof  the Province  within  which\t the
\noffender shall have been sentenced may, without the  consent
\nof the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment  of
\neither description for a term not exceeding fourteen years.”
\nUnder  s. 58 thereof, in every case in which a\tsentence  of
\ntransportation\twas  passed,  the  offender,  until  he\t was
\ntransported,  should be dealt with in the same manner as  if
\nsentenced  to  rigorous imprisonment and should be  held  to
\nhave  been undergoing his sentence of transportation  during
\nthe  term of his imprisonment.\tIt was averred on behalf  of
\nthe
\n443<\/span>
\nState  that the petitioner’s sentence had not been  commuted
\nunder s. 55 of the Indian Penal Code or under s. 402 (1)  of
\nthe   Code  of\tCriminal  Procedure  to\t one   of   rigorous
\nimprisonment.\tWe  have no reason for\tnot  accepting\tthis
\nstatement.   On\t that basis, a question arises\twhether\t the
\npetitioner,  who was sentenced to transportation,  could  be
\ndealt  with  legally  as if he were a  person  sentenced  to
\nrigorous imprisonment.\tThis question was raised before\t the
\nJudicial  Committee of the Privy Council in  Pandit  Kishori
\nLal  v. King Emperor(1).  After considering the\t history  of
\nthe  sentence of transportation, the relevant provisions  of
\nthe  Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal  Procedure\t and
\nthe  Prisons Act, the Privy Council came to  the  conclusion
\nthat the said provisions made it plain that when a  sentence
\nof   transportation  had  been\tpassed\tit  was\t no   longer
\nnecessarily  a sentence of transportation beyond  the  seas.
\nIt was observed at p. 9 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” But at the present day transportation is  in
\n\t      truth but a name given in India to a  sentence
\n\t      for  life and, in a few special cases,  for  a
\n\t      lesser  period,  just as in England  the\tterm
\n\t      imprisonment is applied to all sentences which
\n\t      do not exceed two years and penal servitude to
\n\t      those\t  of\t  three\t     years\t and
\n\t      upwards…… ……………… So, in India,
\n\t      a prisoner sentenced to transportation may  be
\n\t      sent to the Andamans or may be kept in one  of
\n\t      the    jails    in   India    appointed\t for
\n\t      transportation  prisoners,  where he  will  be
\n\t      dealt  with in the same manner as\t a  prisoner
\n\t      sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In view of this weighty authority with which we agree, it is
\nnot   necessary\t  to  consider\tthe   relevant\t provisions,
\nparticularly  in  view of s. 53A of the\t Indian\t Penal\tCode
\nwhich  has been added by Act XXVI of 1955.  Section  53A  of
\nthe said Code reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)……….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   In\tevery  case in which a\tsentence  of
\n\t      transportation  for  a term  has\tbeen  passed
\n\t      before   the  commencement  of  the  Code\t  of
\n\t      Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1954,\t the
\n\t      offender\tshall  be  dealt with  in  the\tsame
\n\t      manner\tas   if\t  sentenced   to    rigorous
\n\t      imprisonment for the same term.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  (1944) L.R. 72 I.A. I,
\n444<\/span>
\nWhatever  justification\t there\tmight  have  been  for\t the
\ncontention  that a person sentenced to transportation  could
\nnot  be legally made to undergo rigorous imprisonment  in  a
\njail in India except temporarily till he was so transported,
\nsubsequent to the said amendment there is none.\t Under\tthat
\nsection,  a  person transported for life or any\t other\tterm
\nbefore the enactment of the said section would be treated as
\na person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life or\t for
\nthe said term.\n<\/p>\n
If  so, the next question is whether there is any  provision
\nof law whereunder a sentence for life imprisonment,  without
\nany  formal  remission\tby appropriate\tGovernment,  can  be
\nautomatically treated as one for a definite period.  No such
\nprovision  is  found  in  the Indian  Penal  Code,  Code  of
\nCriminal   Procedure  or  the  Prisons\tAct.\tThough\t the
\nGovernment of India stated before the Judicial Committee  in
\nthe  case  cited supra that, having regard to s. 57  of\t the
\nIndian Penal Code, 20 years’ imprisonment was equivalent  to
\na   sentence  of  transportation  for  life,  the   Judicial
\nCommittee  did\tnot  express  its  final  opinion  on\tthat
\nquestion.  The Judicial Committee observed in that case thus
\nat p. 10:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” Assuming that the sentence is to be regarded
\n\t      as  one  of  twenty  years,  and\tsubject\t  to
\n\t      remission for good conduct, he had not  earned
\n\t      remission\t  sufficient  to  entitle   him\t  to
\n\t      discharge at the time of his application,\t and
\n\t      it  was  therefore rightly dismissed,  but  in
\n\t      saying  this,  their Lordships are not  to  be
\n\t      taken as meaning that a life sentence must and
\n\t      in  all  cases be treated as one of  not\tmore
\n\t      than  twenty  years, or that  the\t convict  is
\n\t      necessarily entitled to remission.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 57 of the Indian Penal Code has no real bearing  on
\nthe question raised before us.\tFor calculating fractions of
\nterms of punishment the section provides that transportation
\nfor life shall be regarded as equivalent to imprisonment for
\ntwenty years.  It does not say that transportation for\tlife
\nshall  be deemed to be transportation for twenty  years\t for
\nall purposes; nor does the amended section which substitutes
\nthe words imprisonment\tfor life ” for ” transportation\t for
\nlife enable the drawing of any such all-embracing  fiction.A
\nsentence of transportation for life or
\n445<\/span>
\nimprisonment  for  life\t must  prima  facie  be\t treated  as
\ntransportation\t or  imprisonment  for\tthe  whole  of\t the
\nremaining period of the convicted person’s natural life.
\nIt  is\tsaid that the Bombay rules governing  the  remission
\nsystem\tsubstituted a definite period for life\timprisonment
\nand, therefore, if the aggregate of the term actually served
\nexceeds the said period, the person would be entitled to  be
\nreleased.  To appreciate this contention the relevant Bombay
\nrules may be read.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Release.\t Rule  934.   ”\t In  a11  cases\t  of
\n\t      premature releases, orders under Section\t401,
\n\t      Criminal\tProcedure  Code,  will\thave  to  be
\n\t      issued by Government before the prisoners\t can
\n\t      actually be released from Jail.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rule  937.  (c)  ” When a life  convict  or  a
\n\t      prisoner\tin whose case the  State  Government
\n\t      has  passed  an order forbidding\this  release
\n\t      without  reference  to  it,  has\tearned\tsuch
\n\t      remission as would entitle him to release\t but
\n\t      for   the\t  provisions  of  this\t rule,\t the
\n\t      Superintendent shall report accordingly to the
\n\t      State Government through the Inspector-General
\n\t      in order that his case may be considered\twith
\n\t      reference\t to  Section  401  of  the  Code  of
\n\t      Criminal Procedure, 1898.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  Remission  System:  Rule 1419.  (c)\t”  A
\n\t      sentence\tof  transportation  for\t life  shall
\n\t      ordinarily  be  taken  as\t 15  Years’   actual
\n\t      imprisonment.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Review of Sentences: Rule 1447. (2) ” Notwith-
\n\t      standing\tanything contained in rule  1419  no
\n\t      prisoner\t  who\thas   been   sentenced\t  to
\n\t      transportation for life or more than 14 years,
\n\t      imprisonment   or\t  to   transportation\t and
\n\t      imprisonment   or\t  to   transportation\t and
\n\t      imprisonment   for  terms\t exceeding  in\t the
\n\t      aggregate\t 14  years  shall  be  released\t  on
\n\t      completion  of his term of  transportation  or
\n\t      imprisonment  or\tboth, as the  case  may\t be,
\n\t      including all remissions unless a report\twith
\n\t      respect  to such prisoner has been made  under
\n\t      sub.rule\t(1)  and orders of  Government\thave
\n\t      been received thereon with regard to the\tdate
\n\t      of his final release.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is common case that the said rules were made  under\t the
\nPrisons Act, 1894, and that they have
\n446<\/span>
\nstatutory force.  But the Prisons Act does not confer on any
\nauthority a power to commute or remit sentences; it provides
\nonly for the regulation of prisons and for the treatment  of
\nprisoners  confined therein.  Section 59 of the Prisons\t Act
\nconfers a power on the State Government to make rules, inter
\nalia,  for rewards for good conduct.  Therefore,  the  rules
\nmade  under the Act should be construed within the scope  of
\nthe  ambit of the Act.\tThe rules, inter alia,\tprovide\t for
\nthree  types  of  remissions  by way  of  rewards  for\tgood
\nconduct, namely, (i) ordinary, (ii) special and (iii) State.
\nFor  the  working  out of the  said  remissions\t under\trule
\n1419(c),  transportation for life is ordinarily to be  taken
\nas  15\tyears’\tactual imprisonment.   The  rule  cannot  be
\nconstrued  as  a  statutory equation  of  15  years’  actual
\nimprisonment  for transportation for life.  The equation  is
\nonly for a particular purpose, namely, for the purpose of  ”
\nremission  system  ” and not for all purposes.\tThe  word  ”
\nordinarily   ”\t in  the  rule\talso   supports\t  the\tsaid
\nconstruction.\tThe non obstante clause in sub-rule  (2)  of
\nrule 1447 reiterates that notwithstanding anything contained
\nin  rule  1419\tno  prisoner  who  has\tbeen  sentenced\t  to
\ntransportation\tfor life shall be released on completion  of
\nhis term unless orders of Government have been received on a
\nreport submitted to it.\t This also indicates that the period
\nof  15 years’ actual imprisonment specified in the  rule  is
\nonly  for the purpose of calculating the remission and\tthat
\nthe completion of the term on that basis does not ipso facto
\nconfer any right upon the prisoner to release.\tThe order of
\nGovernment  contemplated  in  rule 1447 in  the\t case  of  a
\nprisoner sentenced to transportation for life can only be an
\norder under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for in
\nthe  case  of  a sentence of  transportation  for  life\t the
\nrelease\t of  the prisoner can legally be  effected  only  by
\nremitting the entire balance of the sentence.  Rules 934 and
\n937(c)\tprovide for that contingency.  Under the said  rules
\nthe  orders  of\t an appropriate\t Government  under  s.\t401,
\nCriminal  Procedure Code, are a prerequisite for a  release.
\nNo  other rule has been brought to our notice which  confers
\nan indefeasible right on a
\n447<\/span>
\nprisoner   sentenced  to  transportation  for  life  to\t  an
\nunconditional  release\ton the expiry of a  particular\tterm
\nincluding  remissions.\tThe rules under the Prisons  Act  do
\nnot   substitute  a  lesser  sentence  for  a  sentence\t  of
\ntransportation for life.\n<\/p>\n
Briefly\t stated the legal position is this: Before Act\tXXVI
\nof  1955  a  sentence of transportation for  life  could  be
\nundergone by a prisoner by way of rigorous imprisonment\t for
\nlife  in a designated prison in India.\tAfter the said\tAct,
\nsuch a convict shall be dealt with in the same manner as one
\nsentenced  to  rigorous\t imprisonment  for  the\t same  term.
\nUnless\tthe  said  sentence  is\t commuted  or  remitted\t  by
\nappropriate  authority under the relevant provisions of\t the
\nIndian\tPenal  Code  or the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  a
\nprisoner  sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law  to
\nserve the life, term in prison.\t The rules framed under\t the
\nPrisons\t Act  enable  such a prisoner  to  earn\t remissions-
\nordinary, special and State-and the said remissions will  be
\ngiven  credit  towards his term of  imprisonment.   For\t the
\npurpose\t of  working  out the  remissions  the\tsentence  of
\ntransportation\tfor  life  is  ordinarily  equated  with   a
\ndefinite period, but it is only for that particular  purpose
\nand  not  for  any  other  purpose.   As  the  sentence\t  of
\ntransportation\tfor life or its prison equivalent, the\tlife
\nimprisonment, is one of indefinite duration, the  remissions
\nso  earned do not in practice help such a convict as  it  is
\nnot  possible to predicate the time of his death.   That  is
\nwhy  the rules provide for a procedure to enable the  appro-
\npriate Government to remit the sentence under s. 401 of\t the
\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure  on  a  consideration  of\t the
\nrelevant factors, including the period of remissions earned.
\nThe question of remission is exclusively within the province
\nof  the\t appropriate  Government; and in  this\tcase  it  is
\nadmitted  that,\t though\t the  appropriate  Government\tmade
\ncertain\t remissions  under s. 401 of the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure,  it\tdid  not remit\tthe  entire  sentence.\t We,
\ntherefore, hold that the petitioner has not yet acquired any
\nright to release.\n<\/p>\n
448<\/span><\/p>\n
The petitioner made an impassioned appeal to us that if such
\na construction be accepted, he would be at the mercy of\t the
\nappropriate Government and that the said Government, out  of
\nspite, might not remit the balance of his sentence, with the
\nresult that he would be deprived of the fruits of remissions
\nearned by him for sustained good conduct, useful service and
\neven  donation\tof blood.  The Constitution as well  as\t the
\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure confer the power\tto  remit  a
\nsentence  on  the  executive Government and  it\t is  in\t its
\nexclusive  province.  We cannot assume that the\t appropriate
\nGovernment   will  not\texercise  its  jurisdiction   in   a
\nreasonable manner.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  foregoing reasons we hold that the  petitioner  is
\nunder legal detention and the petition for habeas corpus  is
\nnot maintainable.  The petition is dismissed.
\nPetition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 600, 1961 SCR (3) 440 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: GOPAL VINAYAK GODSE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS. DATE OF […]<\/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-201443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 January, 1961 - 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\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-09T06:29:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-09T06:29:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2614,\"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\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\",\"name\":\"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-09T06:29:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 January, 1961 - 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\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-09T06:29:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961","datePublished":"1961-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-09T06:29:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961"},"wordCount":2614,"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\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961","name":"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-09T06:29:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-vinayak-godse-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-on-12-january-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 12 January, 1961"}]},{"@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\/201443","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=201443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}