{"id":206908,"date":"1973-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-11-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973"},"modified":"2017-02-11T08:25:09","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T02:55:09","slug":"laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973","title":{"rendered":"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 303, \t\t 1974 SCC (1) 309<\/div>\n
Author: D Palekar<\/div>\n
Bench: Palekar, D.G.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLAXMAN AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/11\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  303\t\t  1974 SCC  (1) 309\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1985 SC1156\t (49,53)\n\n\nACT:\nEvidence  Act, Section 145-Important omissions by a  witness\nin  the previous statements regarding participation  of\t the\naccused\t in  the crime--whether\t contradictions\t within\t the\nmeaning of the section-Law laid down in Tahsildar Singh\t and\nanother\t v.  State  of\tU.  P. A. I.  R.  1959\tS.  C.\t1012\nexplained-Impact of omissions on the probative value of\t the\nwitnesses' evidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn the trial u\/s 302 read with s. 34 I. P. C., one Sopan was\nconvicted  on  the  evidence of one  Sudam,  the  only\teye-\nwitness.   Sudam  admitted  in\this  cross-examination\tthat\nneither\t before\t the  Executive Magistrate  nor\t before\t the\nCommitting  Magistrate, he stated that Sopan had beaten\t the\ndeceased with Rumana and that he bad stated the fact for the\nfirst time before the trial Magistrate.\t Sudam also admitted\nthat Sopan did nothing and was simply standing there.  Sudam\nalso  stated  that he could watch the incident\tfor  a\tvery\nshort time as he himself was threatened by the accused\tand,\ntherefore, ran away.  The F.I.R. and dying declarations also\ndid  not mention the part played by Sopan in  the  incident.\nThe trial Court acquitted all the accused but the High Court\nconvicted  them.   As  regards\tthe  omissions\tin   Sudam's\nevidence,  the High Court held, following Tahsildar's  case,\nthat  the  omissions  do not amount  to\t contradictions\t and\ncannot\tbe  proved  to show that  the  witness\twas.  making\nimprovements.\tThe  High  Court,  therefore,  ignored\t the\nomissions.\nAllowing Sopan's appeal (but not of the other two accused),\nHELD . (i) We do not think that s. 145 of the Evidence\tAct,\non  the very reasoning of Tahsildar Singh's case,  cited  by\nthe High Court, was intended to exclude from, evidence\twhat\nis relevant and admitted, and, therefore, a proved  omission\nfrom   having\tits  due  effect  in   the   assessment\t  of\nprobabilities.\t S.  145  of Evidence Act  applies  only  to\n'contradictions.'   If\tthere  are  omissions  in   Previous\nstatements  which do not amount to contradictions but  throw\nsome  doubt  on\t the  veracity\tof  what  was  omitted,\t the\nuncertainty or doubt may be capable of removal by  questions\nin  reexamination.   There  were no such  questions  put  to\nSudam.\t Neither proof nor use of such omissions,  which  do\nnot  amount  to contradictions is barred by s.\t145  of\t the\nEvidence  Act.\tThe error the High Court had  committed\t was\nthat  it  entirely  excluded very  important,  relevant\t and\nmaterial omissions, from duly proved previous statements  of\nthe  witness Sudam from consideration altogether  as  though\nthey were quite irrelevant and in-consequential. [51 OF]\nIt  is\tnot possible to lay down a general rule as  to\twhat\neffect a particular omission from previous statement  should\nhave  on  the probative value of what was so  omitted  by  a\nwitness.    The\t effect\t will depend upon  the\ttotality  of\nproved\tfacts and circumstances in which the omission  might\nhave  taken  place.   It will often  be\t determined  by\t the\nimportance  of\twhat  was  omitted.   The  Law\tof  Evidence\ncontains  nothing more than s. 3 and s. 114 of the  Evidence\nAct  to\t indicate and illustrate the standards\tand  methods\nemployed in assessing the evidence. [510H]\n(ii)The\t High Court ought to have examined the evidence\t of\nSudam,\tthe only eye-witness, in the light of  the  material\nomissions and found out how much Sudam actually saw with his\nown eyes and how much of what he said could be attributed to\nhis  conjecture, surmise or imagination.  Sopan is  entitled\nto benefit of the doubt, which emerges on an examination  of\nthe  whole  evidence in the case about the precise  acts  of\nparticipation by him. 1513D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 122
\nof 1970.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\n24\/;  25th  September  1968  of the  Bombay  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Appeal 1731 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
506<\/span><\/p>\n
M.   C. Bhandare and P. H. Parekh, for the appellants.
\nH.   R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court wag delivered by
\nBEG, J.-The three appellants Laxman (aged 30 at the time  of
\ntrial).\t Sopan (aged 18 at the time of trial), and  Sakharam
\n(aged  40 years at the time of trial), residents of  village
\nWalana were acquitted of charges under section 302 read with
\nsection 34 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge of Parbhani.
\nThe  trial court had declared the testimony of the only\t eye
\nwitness,  Sudam\t Sakharam,  P.S.  17,  to  be  unworthy\t  of
\ncredence.   Neither  the several dying declarations  of\t the
\ndeceased  Narain Rao, in which he gave out the names of\t the
\nthree  appellants  as  his assailants nor  other  facts\t and
\ncircumstances,\tsuch  as the recovery on a pointing  out  by
\nSopan  of  the\t“Rumna”\t said to  have\tbeen  used  for\t the
\nmurderous  attack,  were  held\tby the\ttrial  Court  to  be
\nsufficient  to corroborate the version of the  eye  witness.
\nOn an appeal against the acquittal, a Division Bench of\t the
\nHigh  Court of Bombay had elaborately discussed each one  of
\nthe  reasons  given  by\t the  learned  sessions\t judge\t for
\ndiscarding  the\t testimony of Sudam, corroborated  by  other
\nfacts  and  circumstances, and found the  logic\t behind\t the
\ntrial  court’s reasoning to be unsound.\t The High Court\t had
\nalso  criticised  the learned Session’s\t Judge\tin  treating
\ncertain\t omissions from the previous statements of Sudam  as
\ndamaging   contradictions   without   complying\t  with\t the
\nprovisions of section 145 of Evidence Act.  It had relied on
\nTahsildar Singh and anr. v. State of U.P.,(1) to support its
\nviews  on the requirements of s. 145 of Evidence  Act.\t The
\nHigh  Court set aside the acquittal of the three  appellants
\nand convicted them under section 302 I. P.C. read with s. 34
\nIPC and sentenced them to imprisonment. for life.
\nin  the appeal by special leave, now before us, the  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellants has criticised the\tapproach  of
\nthe  High  Court,  its\tfindings  on  individual  items\t  of
\nevidence,  and\tits view that the  omissions  from  previous
\nstatements of the alleged eye witness Sudam could not affect
\nhis credibility.  After having examined the judgments of the
\ntrial  court  and  the High Court  and\trelevant  pieces  of
\nevidence in the case, and listening to the arguments of\t the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants, who said all that  could
\nbe urged to support this appeal, and learned counsel for the
\nrespondent  State,  we think that the  appreciation  of\t the
\nevidence by the High Court was undoubtedly far superior\t and
\nthat  interference  with  the  trial  Court’s  judgment\t  of
\nacquittal  was justified.  Nevertheless, we find that  there
\nis  an\taspect\tof the case relating to\t Sopan,\t who  was  a
\nstudent\t aged  about  18 years at the time  of\tthe  alleged
\noffence, which has not been given due importance by the High
\nCourt  so  as to determine whether this\t appellant  was\t en-
\ntitled,\t as  we\t think he is, to the  benefit  of  doubt  as
\nregards\t his alleged participation in the actual  commission
\nof an offence.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  AIR 1959 S.C. 1012.\n<\/p>\n
507<\/span><\/p>\n
The account of the occurrence given by Sudam, P.W. 17 may be
\nsummarised as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
The  witness, who knew, Narainrao, Sarpanch of\tWalana,\t had
\nbeen   engaged\tby  the\t Sarpanch  to  assist  him  in\t the
\nsupervising  the  construction of a road under\ta  contract.
\nThe Sarpanch got a commission and the witness got Rs. 3\t per
\nday.   He left Walana with the Sarpanch at 8 . 00  A.M.\t for
\nvillage\t Mannas Pimpri to pay the wages of the labourers  on
\n30th  April, 1966, which was a Saturday.  Wages used  to  be
\npaid on Saturdays.  Laxman, appellant, met and followed them
\non  the way saying that he too had to go to  Mannas  Pimpri.
\nAs  the\t party reached Mahboob’s field,\t Laxman\t lifted\t and
\ntucked in his Dhoti like a wrestler.  Then, Laxman  suddenly
\ncaught\thold of Narayan’s right leg, and, putting  his\tleft
\nhand  on  his  back, felled Narainrao  on  the\tground\tface
\ndownwards.   Narainrao’s hands were under his body.   Laxman
\ncaught and then sat on Narainrao’s neck.  Narainrao raised a
\nhue and cry. When the witness tried to restrain Laxman and
\ncaught his hand, hewas warned that he would be killed if he
\ninterfered.  Just then, thewitness    saw    Sopan    and
\nSakharam,  brother  and\t wards\tthem.\tSakharam  carried  a
\n‘Ramna’.   The\twitness let go the hand\t of  Laxman.   While
\nLaxman\tsat  on the neck of Narainrao and pressed  it  down,
\nSakharam  rained  blows\t with the ‘Ramna’  on  the  back  of
\nNarainrao.  Sopan stood watching nearby- After Sakharam\t had
\nfinished  beating Narainrao, Sopan took the same  Ramna\t and
\nstarted\t beating  him while Narain shouted :  ‘I  am  dead’.
\nFinally, Laxman took a big stone and threw it on the neck of
\nNarainrao.   As\t Laxman\t saw the  witness  watching  from  a
\ndistance,  while escaping he said : “Catch this Mang”.\t The
\nwitness ran towards Walana.  He met, Bhika Kotwal of  Walana
\non the way and informed him that Narainrao was being  beaten
\nby the’ three accused.\tAt Walana, he informed Abhiman,\t the
\nbrother\t of  Narainrao,\t that the accused  were\t beating  up
\nNarainrao.   He\t then went to his sister’s house  and  drank
\nsome  water.   He  was\tabout to go back  to  the  scene  of
\noccurrence when Laxman and Sopan came there.  Laxman said  :
\n‘Take care Mang I If you testify in favour of the  Sarpanch,
\nyou  would  be\tmurdered’.  The witness\t was,  however,\t not
\ndeterred  from going back to the scene of  occurrence  where
\nother villagers had. collected.\n<\/p>\n
Attempts  were\tmade by cross-examination to  discredit\t the
\ntestimony of this witness.  Firstly, it was suggested to him
\nthat two chits (Ex. 31 and 32), showing that the witness was
\ndemanding Rs. 30\/to spoil the prosecution case, were sent by
\nhim.   But, as the High Court had rightly pointed  out,\t the
\nconnection of this witness with writing on these chits could
\nnot be established.  The trial Court had obviously erred  in
\nusing  these chits to doubt the credibility of the  witness.
\nSecondly, it was urged that this witness had denied his con-
\nviction for an offence under s. 12 of the Gambling Act.\t The
\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge had, in our opinion,  attached\t too
\nmuch  importance  to this denial. , The High Court,  on\t the
\nother hand, had examined the certified copy of the  criminal
\ncase register (Ex. 42) filed to contradict the statement  of
\nthis witness denying a conviction and had
\n508<\/span>
\nheld that, although one Sudam Sakharam of Bahar Jahagir\t was
\nshown to be one of two accused persons mentioned in the copy
\nfiled, yet, the entries in the relevant columns did not show
\nanything beyond a fine of Rs. 5\/- on Laxman, the co-accused.
\nThe High Court also held that the identity of the particular
\nSudam Sakharam mentioned in this copy was not established as
\nthat of Sudam P.W. 17 and that there could be other  persons
\nof  that  name\tin the village.\t The  High  Court  had\talso
\nadversely  commented on the fact that the copy was not of  a
\ndocument kept in proper form.  It had been only signed by  a
\nclerk.\t No judgment and order of the Court was filed.\t The
\nHigh  Court  doubted  the  bona\t fides\tof  the\t defence  in
\nproducing  what\t it considered to be a\tsuspicious  copy  to
\ncontradict one of the statements of the witness.  Even if we
\ndo not question the bona fides of the defence in finding it,
\nthe technical defect of want of proof of the exact  identity
\nof  Sudam  mentioned in the copy was  certainly\t there.\t  We
\nagree with the High Court that the trial court had made\t too
\nmuch  out of this alleged contradiction in the testimony  of
\nSudam.\t Thirdly, it was sought to be shown that  Sudam\t had
\nimproved the account of the incident given by him at earlier
\nstages\tby introducing, in his statement at the trial,\twhat
\nhe  had\t not said earlier.  The High Court held\t that  these
\nomissions were not “contradictions”.  Alternatively, it held
\nthat,  even  if\t an  omission here  could  be  viewed  as  a
\n‘contradiction,\t it  could  not\t be  used  at  all   without
\ncomplying with s. 145 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
In Tahsildar’s case (supra) the majority view of this  Court
\nby Subba Rao, J., was (at p. 1023) :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Contradict according to the Oxford Dictionary
\n\t      meant to affirm to the contrary.\tSection\t 145
\n\t      of  the Evidence Act indicates the  manner  in
\n\t      which  contradiction  is\tbrought\t out.\t The
\n\t      cross-examining counsel shall put the part  or
\n\t      parts  of\t the  statement\t which\taffirms\t the
\n\t      contrary to what is stated in evidence.\tThis
\n\t      indicates\t that there is something in  writing
\n\t      which  can  be set against  another  statement
\n\t      made in evidence.\t If the statement before the
\n\t      police officer in the sense we have  indicated
\n\t      and  the statement in the evidence before\t the
\n\t      Court  are so inconsistent  or  irreconcilable
\n\t      with  each other that both of them cannot\t co-
\n\t      exist, it may be said that one contradicts the
\n\t      other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      It  is  broadly  contended  that\ta  statement
\n\t      includes all omissions which are material\t and
\n\t      are  such as a witness is expected to  say  in
\n\t      the  normal course.  This\t contention  ignores
\n\t      the  intention of legislature expressed in  s.
\n\t      162  of  the Code and the nature of  the\tnon-
\n\t      evidentiary value of such a statement,  except
\n\t      for  the\tlimited\t purpose  of  contradiction.
\n\t      Unrecorded  statement is completely  excluded.
\n\t      But  recorded  one  is used  for\ta  specified
\n\t      purpose.\t The record of a statement,  however
\n\t      perfunctory,  is assumed to give a  sufficient
\n\t      guarantee to the correctness of the  statement
\n\t      made but if words not recorded are brought  in
\n\t      by some fiction, the objection of the  section
\n\t      would be defeated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      509<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      By  that process, if a part of a statement  is
\n\t      recorded,\t what was not stated could go in  on
\n\t      the sly in the name of contradiction,  whereas
\n\t      if the entire statement was riot recorded,  it
\n\t      would  be excluded.  By doing so, we would  be
\n\t      circumventing the section by ignoring the only
\n\t      safeguard\t imposed by the\t legislature,  viz.,
\n\t      that the statement should have been recorded”.
\n\t      In the case before us we find that no question
\n\t      was  put\tat  all\t to  Sudam,  in\t his  cross-
\n\t      examination,  about  what\t he  bad  stated  or
\n\t      omitted  to  state to the\t police\t during\t the
\n\t      course of investigation.\tCross-examination of
\n\t      the  witness  bad, however,  brought  out\t two
\n\t      material omissions from statements before\t the
\n\t      Executive Magistrate and the Committing Court.
\n\t      The witness said :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “I  have\tnot  stated  before  the   Executive
\n\t      Magistrate,  nor before the  committing  court
\n\t      that  accused nos. 2 and 3 bad obstructed\t me,
\n\t      when  I took to my heels.\t Sepan (accused\t no.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2)  had  beaten Narainrao\t with  Rumna,  after
\n\t      taking the same from accused no. 3. I have not
\n\t      stated therefore the Executive Magistrate that
\n\t      accused no. 2 bad beaten Narainrao with Rumna.
\n\t      I\t have  not  stated  before  the\t  committing
\n\t      Magistrate that the accused no. 2 (Sopan)\t bad
\n\t      beaten  Narainrao.  I have stated\t before\t the
\n\t      Committing Magistrate that at the time of\t the
\n\t      incident,\t accused no. 2, did nothing  and  he
\n\t      was simply standing there”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The High Court itself observed :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “It is true that the witness had not made\t any
\n\t      statement\t before\t the  Committing  Magistrate
\n\t      regarding the part played by accused no. 2  in
\n\t      the  assault  on\tNarainrao but  that  may  be
\n\t      because he was not questioned on that point at
\n\t      that  time.   The same can be said  about\t the
\n\t      statement before the Executive Magistrate.”
\n\t      It then went on to say
\n\t      “It  cannot, however, be said that be bad\t not
\n\t      made  any\t statement on the point\t before\t the
\n\t      Police.  As we will presently point out, it is
\n\t      not  possible to any that the witness had\t not
\n\t      made  any\t statement on the point\t before\t the
\n\t      Police, but, assuming for the present that  he
\n\t      bad  not made any such statement, it would  be
\n\t      only  an\tomission presumably due to  his\t not
\n\t      being questioned on the point.  That cannot be
\n\t      of any help to the defence to suggest that the
\n\t      witness was making intelligent improvements as
\n\t      assumed ‘by the learned Judge.  The  omission,
\n\t      if  at all it is there, is not such  as  would
\n\t      amount to controdiction and cannot, therefore,
\n\t      be proved to show that the witness was  making
\n\t      improvements.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In so far as the High Court was presuming, from the  failure
\nof  the\t defence  to cross-examine  the\t witness  about\t any
\nassatement  before  the\t police,  that\tthere  was  no\tsuch
\nomission in his statement before
\nM602SupCI\/74
\n510<\/span>
\nthe  police,  the High Court was assuming the  existence  of
\nsomething which could not have been used by the\t prosecution
\nto corroborate its case even if it existed.  The High  Court
\nhad  then, proceeding on the assumption that there was\tsuch
\nan  omission  from the statement of the witness\t before\t the
\npolice, explained an assumed infirmity in it by holding that
\nthis   constituted  neither  a\tcontradiction  nor  was\t  it
\ninexplicable  by  a failure to question the witness  on\t the
\npoint  during the investigation as though it was no part  of
\nthe duty of the police to elicit or ascertain what part\t was
\nplayed by each accused in the occurrence before\t prosecuting
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
If  we were to assume that the witness had revealed  to\t the
\npolice\tthe  part alleged by him at the trial to  have\tbeen
\nplayed by Sopan, it would make it all the more incumbent  on
\nthe prosecution to bring out this part when the witness\t was
\nmaking his statement in his examination-in-chief before\t the
\nMagistrates.  The statements before the magistrates could be
\nused both to contradict and to corroborate.  The prosecution
\nhad  performed its duty in questioning the witness, when  he
\nwas  deposing at the trial, about the part played by  Sopan.
\nIt should not have gone to sleep at earlier stages and\tthen
\ntried  to fill up the possible gaps in the evidence on\tthis
\npart of the case at the trial.\tIf it does this, so that  an
\nimportant prosecution witness appears to be introducing\t new
\nallegations which are vital for determining the liability of
\nan accused, the new statements are bound to arouse suspicion
\nand doubt.\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t not be out of place to mention here that  the\t11th
\nReport\tof the Criminal Law Revision Committee\tin  England,
\nhas  recommended the abrogation of several artificial  rules
\nof  evidence  which may result in the exclusion of  what  is
\nlogically  relevant (See : Criminal Law Review, June,  1973,
\np.  329).  So far as our law goes. we do not think  that  s.
\n145 of the Evidence Act, on the very reasoning of  Tahsildar
\nSingh’s case (supra), cited by the High Court, was  intended
\nto exclude from evidence what is relevant and admitted, and,
\ntherefore,  a proved omission from having its due effect  in
\nthe assessment of probabilities.  Section 145, Evidence\t Act
\napplies only to ‘contradictions’. if there are omissions  in
\nprevious  statements which do not amount  to  contradictions
\nbut  throw some doubt on the veracity of what  was  omitted,
\nthe  uncertainty  or  doubt may be  capable  of\t removal  by
\nquestions  in re-examination.  There were no such  questions
\nput  to Sudam in the case before us.  Neither proof nor\t use
\nof such omissions, which do not amount to contradictions, is
\nbarred by Sec. 145.  Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
is not possible to lay down a general rule as to what effect
\na particular omission from a previous statement should\thave
\non the probative value of what was so omitted by a  witness.
\nThe effect will depend upon the totality of proved facts and
\ncircumstances  in which the omission might have taken  place
\nIt  will often be determined by the importance of wtiat\t was
\nomitted.  Oar enacted law of evidence contains nothing\tmore
\nthan sections 3 and 114 of the Evidence Act to indicate\t and
\nillustrate  the standards and methods employed in  assessing
\nthe evidence.  The error the High Court had committed in
\n511<\/span>
\nthe  case  before  us was that\tit  entirely  excluded\tvery
\nimportant,  relevant,  and  material  omissions,  from\tduty
\nproved\tprevious  statements  of  the  witness\tSudam\tfrom
\nconsideration\taltogether   as\t though\t they\twere   quite
\nirrelevant and inconsequential.\n<\/p>\n
Quite  apart  from the error of the High Court\tin  assuming
\nthat a material omission from a previous statement, even  if
\nit is not to be treated strictly as a contradiction, must be
\nignored in evaluating the testimony of the only eye  witness
\non  so important a matter, for determining the liability  of
\nSopan, we think that what Sudam P.W. 17 had omitted to state
\nbefore\tthe  Magistrates  ought\t also  to  have\t been\tmore
\ncritically  examined  and tested by the High  Court  in\t the
\nlight  of  probabilities  and the natural  course  of  human
\nconduct.    The\t  important   question\t which\t arose\t for
\ndetermination on facts and circumstances disclosed by  Sudam
\nhimself was :\n<\/p>\n
\t      How  much did Sudam actually see with his\t own
\n\t      eyes and how much of what he said could be not
\n\t      unreasonably    attributed   to\t conjecture,
\n\t      surmise, or imagination on his part?
\n\t      Before we discuss the evidence further, we may
\n\t      observe that Professor Munsterberg, in a\tbook
\n\t      called  “On the Witness Stand” (p. 51),  cited
\n\t      by  Judge\t Jerome Frank in his  “Law  and\t the
\n\t      Modern  Mind” (see : 1949 ed. p.\t106),  gives
\n\t      instances of experiments conducted by enacting
\n\t      sudden  unexpected preplanned episodes  before
\n\t      persons  who  were then asked to\twrite  down,
\n\t      soon afterwards, what they had seen and heard.
\n\t      The astounding result was :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Words were put into the mouths of men who had
\n\t      been silent spectators during the whole  short
\n\t      episode; actions were attributed to the  chief
\n\t      participants of which not the slightest  trace
\n\t      existed;\t and   essential   parts   of\t the
\n\t      tragicomedy  were completely  eliminated\tfrom
\n\t      the memory of a number of witnesses”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hence,\tthe Professor concluded : “We never know whether  we
\nremember,   perceive,\tor  imagine”.\t Witnesses   cannot,
\ntherefore,  be branded as liars in toto and their  testimony
\nrejected  outright  even if parts of  their  statements\t are
\ndemonstrably  incorrect or doubtful.  The astute  judge\t can
\nseparate  the grains of acceptable truth from the  chaff  of
\nexaggerations and improbabilities which cannot be safely  or
\nprudently accepted and acted upon.  It is sound\t commonsense
\nto  refuse to apply mechanically, in assessing the worth  of
\nnecessarily  imperfect human testimony, the maxim :  “falsus
\nin uno falsus in omnibus.”\n<\/p>\n
Reverting  to the evidence in the case, we find\t that  Sudam
\nwas,  as  is quite natural, in a hurry to get  back  to\t the
\nvillage because, apart from the fear of the accused  (Laxman
\nhad  actually threatened to kill him and the other  two\t had
\nalso  been alleged by him to have attempted to\tprevent\t his
\nescape),  he had to inform the relations of  Narainrao\tsoon
\nabout  what he had seen.  And, he deposed that he told\tboth
\nBhika  Kotwal and Abhiman (P.W. 2) when he met\tthem,.\tthat
\nNarainrao  was\t“being”\t beaten, or,  in  other\t words,\t the
\nbeating had not come
\n512<\/span>
\nto  an\tend when he ran away from the scene  of\t occurrence.
\nMoreover,  he  was quite far when Sopan is alleged  by\thim,
\napparently  for the first time it the-trial, to\t have  taken
\nhis turn to beat the deceased with the Rumna.  Even the last
\nact attributed by him to Laxman who is said to have hurled a
\nbig  stone at the neck of Narainrao lying on the ground,  is
\nnot  corroborated by medical evidence, Moreover, it was\t not
\npossible for Sudam to have observed from a distance that the
\nstone hurled by Laxman actually hit Narain on his neck.\t  He
\ncould have mistaken some act of Sopan, such as throwing away
\nof the Rumna, for an assault with it claimed by him to\thave
\nbeen seen from a distance as he turned his head back to\t see
\nwhilst\tescaping.   We, therefore, conclude  that,  although
\nSudam  was  there to witness how the attack  began,  he\t had
\nprobably  drawn upon his imagination to some extent to\tgive
\nthe details of how it ended.\n<\/p>\n
We  next turn to the several dying declarations put  forward
\nto corroborate the statement of Sudam.\tThese show that\t the
\nthree  appellants were present at the attack upon  Narainrao
\nand  were  thought  by Narainrao  to  have  participated  in
\nbeating\t him.\tThese dying declarations,  however,  do\t not
\nmention\t the particular part assigned by Sudam to  Sopan  in
\nhis  deposition at the trial.  This is natural as  Narainrao
\nwas  not in a position to see the actual assailant after  he
\nwas  pinned down to the ground with his face  downwards\t and
\nLaxman\tsitting on his “neck”.\tHe could only guess who\t was
\nstriking him on the back.\n<\/p>\n
The  first dying declaration, made to Mahboob, P.W. 10,\t did
\nnot  impress the High Court.  The second was made to  Piraji
\nP.W.  9,  the  third to Laxmanramji P.W. 2 and\tthe  4th  to
\nDatarao\t P.W.  3, the Sarpanch of Mannas Pimpri.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  had  rightly  observed  that  the  last\tthree  dying
\ndeclarations  made  to villagers, who had assembled  at\t the
\nscene of occurrence before Narainrao died, could not be held
\nto be false as the medical evidence indicated that he  could
\nremain\tconscious for some time after the attack.  The\tmore
\nimportant question for determination, therefore, was :
\n“To what extent do the dying declarations corporate Sudam?”
\nNeither the dying declarations nor the F.I.R. lodged at\t the
\npolice station by Abhiman P.W. 12, the brother of Narainrao,
\non  30-4-1966.\tat 12 30 p.m. disclose the parts  played  by
\neach  of the three accused.  The report sent by\t Abhiman  is
\nactually signed by Sudam P.W. 17.  It is true that, at\tthat
\ntime, it was not known that Narainrao would die.  But,\tboth
\nSudam  and Abhiman knew that a very severe beating had\tbeen
\ngiven  to Narainrao.  We think that it is unlikely that,  if
\nSudam  had seen the details of the way in which the  beating
\nof  Narainrao  ended, no details of it whatsoever  would  be
\ngiven in the report sent by Abhiman to the police which\t was
\nsigned by Sudam.  Thus, the proved omission of the last part
\nof  Sudam’s  version  from the F.I.R. as well  as  from\t his
\nproved\tprevious  statements before the\t Executive  and\t the
\nCommitting Magistrates, combined with the unlikelihood\tthat
\nhe could either stay long enough at the scene to see how the
\nbeating ended or
\n513<\/span>
\nwould  be  able to see this well enough when he\t turned\t his
\nhead back while running away and his own admitted statements
\nto  other  witnesses throw that part of the story  in  which
\nSopan appellant is said to have taken his turn in beating of
\nNarainrao in the region of reasonable doubt.
\nSopan,\tappellant,  a young man, may  have  accompanied\t his
\nelder  brother,\t Laxman, and his cousin,  Sakharam,  out  of
\ncuriosity.   He may have watched the beating.\tSudam’s\t own
\nstatement before the committing magistrate quoted above, was
\nthat  this  is all that Sopan did there, although  the\tHigh
\nCourt thought fit to explain it away by believing that\tthis
\nassertion was confined to the earlier stage of the  beating.
\nAccording  to  the  High Court’s  finding,  Sopan  was\tonly
\nstanding  at least when Sakharam was giving the eating\twith
\nthe ‘Rumna’.  He must have accompanied his elder brother and
\ncousin\tback to the village.  Sopan may have even taken\t and
\nthrown\tthe ‘Rumna’ or known where it was lying.   The\tfact
\nthat he indicated the place from where it could be recovered
\nwould  not be sufficient to establish his  participation  in
\nthe incident beyond reasonable doubt.  Therefore, we are  of
\nthe  opinion  that  Sopan, appellant,  is  entitled  to\t the
\nbenefit of the doubt which emerges on an examination of\t the
\nwhole  evidence\t in  the  case about  the  precise  acts  of
\nparticipation by him.  As regards Laxman and Sakharam  there
\nis  no room for doubt that they actually attacked  Narainrao
\ndeceased as stated by Sudam.  The manner in which  Narainrao
\nwas  said  to be beaten, corroborated by  medical  evidence,
\nmakes it impossible for the beating to have been given by  a
\nsingle individual.  The participation of Laxman and  Saharam
\nin  the\t actual\t commission of the  offence  is,  therefore,
\nestablished  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.   The   medical
\nevidence  also\tleaves no doubt that the  beating  was\tsuch
\nthat,  in the ordinary course of nature, it would cause\t the
\ndeath of Narainrao.\n<\/p>\n
We,  therefore,\t think that Laxman and\tSakharam  appellants
\nhave  been rightly convicted under section 302 read with  s.
\n34  I.P.C.  and sentenced to life imprisonment.\t  Hence,  we
\ndismiss\t the appeal of Laxman and Sakharam and affirm  their
\nconvictions  and  sentences.  We allow the appeal  of  Sopan
\nappellant  and\tset aside his conviction and  sentence.\t  We
\norder  that Sopan be set at liberty forthwith unless  wanted
\nin some other connection.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.W.\t\t     Appeal allowed in part.\n514<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 303, 1974 SCC (1) 309 Author: D Palekar Bench: Palekar, D.G. PETITIONER: LAXMAN AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/11\/1973 BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: 1974 […]<\/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-206908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLaxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 - 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\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T02:55:09+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T02:55:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\"},\"wordCount\":4107,\"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\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\",\"name\":\"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T02:55:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 - 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\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T02:55:09+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973","datePublished":"1973-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T02:55:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973"},"wordCount":4107,"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\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973","name":"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T02:55:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-and-others-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-november-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxman And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973"}]},{"@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\/206908","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=206908"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206908\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}