{"id":204353,"date":"2011-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-14T16:49:12","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T11:19:12","slug":"bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh<\/div>\n
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n\n                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No.467 of 1989\n\n==========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1. Bhagwan Singh, Son of Ram Pratap Singh\n<\/p>\n
2. Ram Rekha Singh, Son of Sitaram Singh\n<\/p>\n
3. Ramesh Singh, Son of Bhagwan Singh\n<\/p>\n
4. Chhotan Jha, Son of Mathura Jha\n<\/p>\n
5. Navin Maharaj, Son of Bidya Mharaj\n<\/p>\n
6. Ram Chandra Singh, Son of Indradeo Singh,
\n    All resident of village-Maheshwara, P.S.-Naokothi, District-Begusarai.<\/p>\n
                                                          … ….   Appellants
\n                                      Versus
\n   The State of Bihar
\n                                                          …. …. Respondent<\/p>\n
==========================================================
\nAppearance :\n<\/p>\n
For the Appellants : Mr. Bakshi S.R. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
\n                     Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
\n                     Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent: Miss. Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
==========================================================<\/p>\n
    CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
\n                                        &
\n             HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH<\/p>\n
                              ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
   (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)<\/p>\n
                                    ********<\/p>\n
              Originally, this appeal was filed on behalf of six appellants.<\/p>\n
  During pendency of this appeal, three appellants have been reported to be<\/p>\n
  dead, namely, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Rekha Singh and Navin Maharaj, who<\/p>\n
  are appellant nos.1, 2 & 5 respectively. At the time when the judgment<\/p>\n
  under appeal was delivered convicting them on 26.08.1989, they were 55<\/p>\n
  years, 53 years and 50 years of age respectively, which would make them at<\/p>\n
  least 76 years, 72 years and 71 years as of today.\n<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
             Considering the aforesaid, the application filed bringing on<\/p>\n
record this fact is accepted and their appeals are held to be abated. That<\/p>\n
leaves us with three appellants, namely, Ramesh Singh, who is the son of<\/p>\n
deceased appellant, Bhagwan Singh, Chhotan Jha, son of Mathura Jha and<\/p>\n
Ram Chandra Singh, son of Indradeo Singh. The appellants have been<\/p>\n
convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case<\/p>\n
No.116 of 1984\/61 of 1985. They all have been convicted under Sections-<\/p>\n
302\/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and two years respectively. Ramesh<\/p>\n
Singh has been convicted under Section-324 of the Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
no separate sentence has been awarded to him. It may be mentioned here<\/p>\n
that 13 persons were put on trial. One person, namely, Jagdish Singh had<\/p>\n
died in course of trial, leaving 12 persons out of whom only six persons were<\/p>\n
convicted whereas the other six have been acquitted. State did not challenge<\/p>\n
the acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
             The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.07.1981 at about 10<\/p>\n
am when Sone Lal Singh, P.W.4 along with his five other brothers, that is,<\/p>\n
Laddu Lal Singh, P.W.1, Ram Sewak Singh, P.W.2, Shyam Narain Singh,<\/p>\n
P.W.3 & Balmiki Singh, P.W.6 were transplanting paddy seedlings along<\/p>\n
with their brother Ram Jatan Singh, the deceased, 11 persons named and<\/p>\n
several others came and started assaulting the prosecution party. It may be<\/p>\n
noticed that appellant, Chhotan Jha and appellant, Ram Chandra Singh are<\/p>\n
not named therein. It is alleged that appellants, Bhagwan Singh and Ram<\/p>\n
Rekha Singh (both since deceased) cut the right leg of deceased Ram Jatan<\/p>\n
Singh with ‘Pharsa’ and others assaulted the deceased with ‘Khanti’ and
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
other instruments.   Ramesh Singh, appellant no.3 injured the informant,<\/p>\n
Sone Lal Singh with spear on his eye. It is alleged that when the accused<\/p>\n
persons came to the spot, there were about 10 to 15 labourers, who were also<\/p>\n
working there and, seeing the assault, they ran away. Upon alarm being<\/p>\n
raised, the accused persons ran away and some nearby villagers turned up.<\/p>\n
In view of the critical position of Ram Jatan Singh, whose right leg had been<\/p>\n
cut and severed, it is alleged that he was taken on a rickshaw to a doctor<\/p>\n
whereas the injured Sone Lal Singh proceeded to the police out post at<\/p>\n
Manjhaul where his statement was recorded at 5:50 am on 04.07.1981 itself<\/p>\n
by Arvind Kumar Jha, S.I. of Nawkothi, T.O.P. who forwarded the<\/p>\n
fardbeyan to Bakhari P.S. for being registered as a case under Sections-148,<\/p>\n
149, 447, 324 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Sri A.K. Jha took up<\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
             It appears that the grievously injured Ram Jatan Singh was then<\/p>\n
taken to a doctor who, allegedly, seeing the critical condition referred him to<\/p>\n
Begusarai Sadar Hospital. He was, allegedly, carried thereafter in the Jeep<\/p>\n
of the prosecution party but died in way.\n<\/p>\n
             To complete the sequence, we then have the inquest report in<\/p>\n
respect of the dead body of the Ram Jatan Singh, which was prepared at 1:40<\/p>\n
pm on 04.07.1981. The place where inquest was held was the postmortem<\/p>\n
room at Begusarai Sadar Hospital. It is recorded in the inquest report about<\/p>\n
the dead body with the severed leg and this inquest report, for reasons<\/p>\n
unknown, was not produced in the Court. The carbon copy thereof was<\/p>\n
produced and, that too, was not accepted, as such, only signature of the two<\/p>\n
witnesses was accepted as Exts.2 & 2\/1. What is to be noted is that one of
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
the witnesses to the inquest is an Advocate and the other is Md. Umar. None<\/p>\n
of the brothers of the deceased, five of whom were present at the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence and two of them have carried him to the hospital, were witness to<\/p>\n
the inquest. Thereafter, the postmortem was conduced at 2 pm at the Sadar<\/p>\n
Hospital, Begusarai. The postmortem report is Ext.3, but, what is curious is<\/p>\n
that the postmortem report has endorsement of Bakhari P.S. Case No.126 of<\/p>\n
1981. The significance of this would be dealt with later on. Ultimately, it is<\/p>\n
at 6:00 pm on 04.07.1981 the present case being Bakhari (Nawkothi) P.S.<\/p>\n
Case No.126 of 1981 was registered and the Officer-in-Charge, R.N. Pal of<\/p>\n
the said P.S. entrusted the investigation to Sri A.K. Jha of Nawokothi. The<\/p>\n
fardbeyan is Ext.5 and the formal F.I.R. is Ext.4.\n<\/p>\n
            Upon investigation being completed, chargesheet was submitted<\/p>\n
against 13 persons including the appellants, who were put on trial, but in<\/p>\n
course of trial one died and out of the remaining 12 persons, 6 persons were<\/p>\n
acquitted and the present six appellants were convicted. As noted earlier, we<\/p>\n
are left only with Ramesh Singh, who has been sentenced under Sections-<\/p>\n
148, 302\/149 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code.           The other two, being<\/p>\n
Chhotan Jha and Ram Chandra Singh, had been convicted under Section-<\/p>\n
302\/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
            The prosecution in order to establish its case has examined in all<\/p>\n
10 witnesses. Out of whom, as noted earlier, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 are said to<\/p>\n
be eye witnesses who are all brothers of the deceased Ram Jatan Singh and<\/p>\n
being sons of Bishun Deo Singh. P.W.5, Radha Singh is an agriculturist,<\/p>\n
who has been brought only to depose that when he came he saw Bhagwan<\/p>\n
Singh, Ram Rekah Singh, Chhotan Jha and Ram Chandra Singh running
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
away from place of occurrence.         Ramdeo Singh, P.W.7 is again an<\/p>\n
agriculturist who has been tendered though an eye witness. He has deposed<\/p>\n
nothing. P.W.8 is one Birendra Kumar an Advocate who has witnessed the<\/p>\n
inquest. P.W.9, Dr. P. Mishra, is the Civil Assistant Surgeon and conducted<\/p>\n
the postmortem. P.W.10, Ramagyan Rai is an Advocate Clerk, who has<\/p>\n
proved the formal F.I.R.     It may be noted that the fardbeyan is in the<\/p>\n
handwriting of S.I. Sri A.K. Jha. The prosecution also brought on record the<\/p>\n
injury report in respect of injury received by Sone Lal Singh which was later<\/p>\n
rejected. The trial Court has rightly rejected the same. The consequence<\/p>\n
whereof would be noticed subsequently. Interestingly, the I.O., S.I., Sri<\/p>\n
A.K. Jha has not been examined.\n<\/p>\n
            All the five brothers, who claimed to be eye witnesses, have<\/p>\n
made consistent deposition in chief about the place of occurrence and the<\/p>\n
manner of occurrence, but, in Court they admitted that in the F.I.R. name of<\/p>\n
only 11 persons were given and, inter alia, though they had disclosed the<\/p>\n
names of Harihar Singh, Chhotan Jha, Ram Jatan Singh & Navin Maharaj<\/p>\n
and it was not recorded in the fardbeyan by the I.O.. Subsequently, a protest<\/p>\n
petition was filed including some of these name, which protest petition has<\/p>\n
been brought on record by the defence to show that even in the protest<\/p>\n
petition all the four missing names were not there. They were subsequently<\/p>\n
inserted in course of investigation and charge-sheeted accordingly.<\/p>\n
            There has been lengthy cross-examination of the 5 brothers by<\/p>\n
the defence, which establishes that there had been long standing serious<\/p>\n
business rivalry between the two groups in respect of illicit narcotic trade.<\/p>\n
In the F.I.R. itself it is stated that the accused persons were taking revenge
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
because allegedly their narcotic consignment was seized by the police<\/p>\n
allegedly on information given by the prosecution party. This occurrence<\/p>\n
was, thus, a false implication by the prosecution party. One must take note<\/p>\n
of the fact that there had been differences in the names, as given by different<\/p>\n
persons, starting from fardbeyan to the depositions, but may not be very<\/p>\n
material in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
             Thus, this Court has to examine whether the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the implication of the appellants<\/p>\n
stands fully established beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
             First coming to the place of occurrence, in the F.I.R. it is<\/p>\n
admitted that when the occurrence took place about 10-15 labourers of the<\/p>\n
prosecution party working there who ran away seeing the assault. This is<\/p>\n
also admitted in the depositions in the Court by the five brothers, who are<\/p>\n
eye witnesses. Without there being any explanation, none of these<\/p>\n
independent witnesses have been examined, to corroborate the story as set<\/p>\n
up by them regarding the brutal assault in their presence.<\/p>\n
             The Investigating Officer has not been examined. Thus, except<\/p>\n
for the statement of the five brothers there is no other corroboration with<\/p>\n
regard to the place of occurrence. Let it be noted that the fardbeyan was<\/p>\n
recorded at the police out post far away from the place of occurrence where<\/p>\n
except the injured Sone Lal Singh, who is the informant,             the other<\/p>\n
grievously injured persons that is his brother Ram Jatan Singh, who later<\/p>\n
died, had not been brought at the time of recording fardbeyan.<\/p>\n
             In our view, learned counsel for the defence has rightly argued<\/p>\n
that the evidence of five brothers, who posed themselves to be eye witnesses,
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be relied upon because they are highly interested witnesses. As noted<\/p>\n
repeatedly above, they are all brothers and deposing in respect of death of<\/p>\n
one of their brother. They all admitted that there has been hostility between<\/p>\n
the parties owing to seizure of narcotic by the police. They would become<\/p>\n
highly interested witnesses and with no corroboration whatsoever with<\/p>\n
regard to any of the evidence their testimonies cannot be relied upon.     The<\/p>\n
conviction would inure to the benefit of prosecution party.<\/p>\n
            Another reason for doubting the entire prosecution case is that<\/p>\n
the incident took place at about 10:00 am, the fardbeyan is recorded at police<\/p>\n
out post at 10:50 pm and, thereafter, sent to Bakhari P.S. for registration and<\/p>\n
registered at 6:00 pm on the same day. The grievously injured person, who<\/p>\n
later succumbed to his injury, Ram Jatan Singh was not brought to the police<\/p>\n
station. He was referred to Begusarai Sadar Hospital and in way he died.<\/p>\n
His dead body then surfaces in postmortem hall at Begusarai. The inquest<\/p>\n
report is prepared in postmortem hall of Begusarai.           Postmortem was<\/p>\n
conducted at 3:00 pm on the same day. The doctor, who first examined the<\/p>\n
grievously injured Ram Jatan Singh before referring him to Sadar Hospital,<\/p>\n
Begusarai or for that matter the informant Sone Lal Singh, has not been<\/p>\n
examined nor the injury reports prepared in this regard duly proved. This<\/p>\n
sequence of events clearly shows that when the case was formally registered<\/p>\n
at 6:00 pm, by then, the inquest report and postmortem report had already<\/p>\n
prepared. From the inquest report, it would be seen that it was witnessed by<\/p>\n
an Advocate, who was already involved in the case, curiously even though<\/p>\n
the brothers of the deceased carried them to the Begusarai Sadar Hospital<\/p>\n
where on way, he died, none of the brothers were witness to the inquest
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
report. This creates grave doubt on the prosecution story itself. Further the<\/p>\n
non-inclusion of name of appellant no.3, Ramesh Singh, appellant no.4,<\/p>\n
Chhotan Jha along with another accused person Harihar Singh in the<\/p>\n
fardbeyan is not explained.     In fact, their names came at the time of<\/p>\n
deposition, with explanation that, they had disclosed all these names to the<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector of Police, A.K. Jha, who later on was Investigating Officer,<\/p>\n
but he did not record the same in the fardbeyan. Let it be noted that this<\/p>\n
lame excuse has been the ground for acquitting Harihar Singh, whose<\/p>\n
consignment of narcotic is supposed to have been seized by the police, who<\/p>\n
had the main grudge with the prosecution party, but, while doing so, the trial<\/p>\n
Court has chosen to ignore the same in respect of appellant nos.4 & 6,<\/p>\n
namely, Chhotan Jha and Ram Chandra Singh. We find no good reason for<\/p>\n
the same. State has not appealed against acquittal. Thus, if on this ground<\/p>\n
Harihar Singh and others are to be acquitted then Chhotan Jha and Ramesh<\/p>\n
Singh cannot be convicted on the same evidence.\n<\/p>\n
            Thus, we would find that neither the place of occurrence nor the<\/p>\n
manner of occurrence stand fully established. If that be so then, in our view,<\/p>\n
the convictions cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
            In so far as Ramesh Singh’s conviction under Section-324 is<\/p>\n
concerned, the same cannot be sustained at all. It is alleged that Ramesh<\/p>\n
Singh gave a spear blow above the eye of the informant, Sone Lal Singh for<\/p>\n
which injury report was prepared, but though the Court has rejected the<\/p>\n
injury report as not properly proved, thus, not establishing the injury, the<\/p>\n
Court below has mechanically convicted the Ramesh Singh which<\/p>\n
conviction cannot stand with injury not proved.\n<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
            We may also notice a serious unexplained discrepancy which<\/p>\n
creates a doubt in the prosecution story. It is alleged that the right leg below<\/p>\n
the knee of Ram Jatan Singh was cut and severed at the place of occurrence<\/p>\n
itself. He was then carried to a doctor and then referred to Begusarai Sadar<\/p>\n
Hospital. Neither the referring doctor has been examined nor the injury<\/p>\n
report has been brought on record. The inquest report, as noted above, was<\/p>\n
prepared at the postmortem hall itself. In the inquest report, there is mention<\/p>\n
of a severed leg along with a body but when we come to the postmortem<\/p>\n
report and the deposition of Dr. P. Mishra as P.W.9, though in his chief he<\/p>\n
states that he had seen the severed leg along with dead body, in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination, he admits that the severed leg was not there because had it been<\/p>\n
there, he would have made a mention of it in the postmortem report and after<\/p>\n
finishing the postmortem examination, he would have attached the leg to the<\/p>\n
dead body before being returned, but as these things were not noted, the<\/p>\n
severed leg was probably not there.\n<\/p>\n
            All these facts if they are taken together what we have is that the<\/p>\n
fardbeyan is recorded without any one seeing the grievously injured person,<\/p>\n
till his dead body surfaces in the Begusarai Sadar Hospital postmortem hall<\/p>\n
and a inquest report is prepared. Postmortem was conducted four hours<\/p>\n
before the formal F.I.R. is registered, but the postmortem report has the<\/p>\n
registered case number endorsed therein. The inquest report in original is not<\/p>\n
produced, only carbon copy is produced and the inquest report, as such, is not<\/p>\n
accepted. The injury report of the accused persons is not accepted. The<\/p>\n
doctor, who examined the accused persons, is not examined and to top it all<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer, who recorded the fardbeyan, is not examined. All
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
these put together clearly point to one conclusion that neither the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence has been established nor the manner of occurrence nor the<\/p>\n
implication of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
             One thing we find very odd in the present case for which there is<\/p>\n
no explanation is that it is well settled that it is Officer-in-Charge of a Police<\/p>\n
Station, who upon registration of the first information report assigns the work<\/p>\n
of investigation to other Officer. The investigation starts after the F.I.R. is<\/p>\n
registered. Normally, the inquest and the postmortem report are done at the<\/p>\n
behest of the Investigating Officer so appointed, but here we find that the<\/p>\n
formal F.I.R. is registered at 6:00 pm but on the same very day at 1:30 pm the<\/p>\n
inquest report is prepared which is not proved and at 2:00 pm the postmortem<\/p>\n
is carried out and the report has endorsement of P.S. case number which was<\/p>\n
yet to be registered. These are serious unexplained discrepancies, the sight of<\/p>\n
which cannot be lost. There is yet another factum which we find common to<\/p>\n
all the eye witnesses, who are all brothers and joint in common cause and<\/p>\n
living together and joint mess. Suggestions have been given that, in fact, Ram<\/p>\n
Jatan Singh was killed by someone at different place and his dead body<\/p>\n
having been found in consultation with the Lawyer (Lawyer was the witness<\/p>\n
in the inquest), subsequently, the case implicating the appellants have been<\/p>\n
drawn up. The manner in which the whole episode as noted in detailed<\/p>\n
above, from the noting of the fardbeyan to the registration of F.I.R., supports<\/p>\n
these suggestions of the defence. At this point, it may also be noticed that<\/p>\n
right through the cross-examination of all these five witnesses their attention<\/p>\n
have been consistently drawn to the fact that their deposition in the Court is<\/p>\n
not consistent with their fardbeyan or their previous statements as made
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
              before the Investigating Officer. The prosecution did not examine the<\/p>\n
              Investigating Officer to clear these doubts. This is a severe prejudice caused<\/p>\n
              to the defence.\n<\/p>\n
                          Keeping all these factors in mind, in our view, it would be highly<\/p>\n
              unsafe to rely on the prosecution version and the benefit must go to the<\/p>\n
              accused persons. We, thus, hold that the prosecution has failed to establish<\/p>\n
              its case beyond reasonable doubt.        The appellants are, thus, entitled to<\/p>\n
              acquittal. They are, accordingly, acquitted and discharged of their liabilities<\/p>\n
              of bail bonds. This appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                               (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)\n\n\n\nThe Patna High Court,\n12th September, 2011\nTrivedi\/NAFR                                   (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.467 of 1989 ========================================================== 1. Bhagwan Singh, Son of Ram Pratap Singh 2. Ram Rekha Singh, Son of Sitaram Singh 3. Ramesh Singh, Son […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 - 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\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-14T11:19:12+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=\"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\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T11:19:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3025,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T11:19:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 - 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\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-14T11:19:12+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T11:19:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011"},"wordCount":3025,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011","name":"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T11:19:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204353","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=204353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}