{"id":207845,"date":"2009-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-04T04:27:04","modified_gmt":"2016-01-03T22:57:04","slug":"vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n                 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR     \n\n\n\n\n                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 578  OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                  1.       Vinod  Kumar Patel\n\n                   2.       Jeturam   Patel\n                                         ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                   VERSUS\n\n\n\n                    State  of Chhattisgarh\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\nMEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL               \nPROCEDURE, 1973.    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n!       Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants\n\n\n^         Mr.  Rajendra  Tripathi,  P.L.  for   the State\/respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J \n\n\n\n\n\n       Dated:04\/09\/2009\n\n\n\n\n:       Judgment\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                 (Passed on  4\/9\/2009)<\/p>\n
1.   This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment<\/p>\n
of conviction and order of sentence dated 20\/6\/2007 passed<\/p>\n
by  the  Additional  Sessions Judge, Bhathapara,  District<\/p>\n
Raipur  (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 71\/2007  whereby  and<\/p>\n
where   under  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  after<\/p>\n
holding  the appellants guilty for the offence  punishable<\/p>\n
under  Sections  498-A\/34 and 306\/34 of the  Indian  Penal<\/p>\n
Code  and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with<\/p>\n
fine of Rs. 500\/- in default of payment of fine amount, to<\/p>\n
further  undergo  rigorous imprisonment for  3  months  to<\/p>\n
each appellants and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with<\/p>\n
fine of Rs. 500\/- in default of payment of fine amount, to<\/p>\n
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months to each<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
\nchallenged on the ground that without any clinching and
\ncredible  evidence of cruelty, torture and abatement of
\nsuicide Court below has convicted and sentenced the
\nappellants and thereby committed an illegality.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The brief case of the prosecution:- deceased
\nIndranibai was married to appellant No. 1 Vinod Kumar
\nPatel in the Year 2006 within 8 months of her marriage she
\ncommitted suicide in the house of appellants by consuming
\npoison. Marg was reported by Melandas vide P-2 on
\n21\/10\/2006. Investigating Officer proceeded for spot and
\nafter summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-3 prepared
\ninquest of the body of the deceased vide Ex.  P-4. Dead
\nbody was sent for autopsy to the Community Health Center,
\nBhatapara vide Ex. P-18. Autopsy was condoned by team of
\ntwo doctors vide Ex. P-20 by Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari and
\nDr. D.P.  Verma, death was due to asphyxia as a result of
\nconsuming poison. Viscera were preserved and was seized
\nvide Ex. P-1. Spot map was prepared by P-19 Tahsildar and
\nvide Ex. P-21-A by Sub Divisional Officer (Police). First
\nInformation Report was registered Vide Ex. D-3.  Accused
\npersons were arrested vide P-22 to P-24. Viscera were sent
\nfor chemical analysis vide Exs. P-25 & P-26. Statements of
\nthe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code’). After
\ncompletion of the investigation charge sheet was filed
\nbefore the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara who
\nin turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on
\ntransfer.\n<\/p>\n
4.   In order to prove the guilt of the appellants
\nprosecution examined as well as 24 witnesses. Examination
\nof the accused persons were conducted under Section 313 of
\nthe Code where they denied the circumstances appearing
\nagainst them and innocency and false implication is
\nclaimed.\n<\/p>\n
5.   After affording an opportunity of the hearing to the
\nparties learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted
\nand sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Judgment
\nimpugned and records of courts below perused.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the
\npresent case deceased who was wife of appellant No. 1 and
\ndaughter-in-law of appellant No. 2 died under abnormal
\ncircumstances on 20\/10\/2006 in their house but they have
\nnever demanded dowry and committed  torture upon the
\ndeceased they have neither instigated or added nor abated
\nher suicide the only facts that that she died within 8
\nmonths of her marriage is not sufficient to draw the
\ninference that present appellants are liable for
\ncommission of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Learned counsel for the appellants further argued
\nthat prosecution witnesses are not supported the case of
\nthe prosecution. The statement of PW5 Ramanand Patel
\nfather of the deceased reveals that relation between the
\nparties were cordial even one day before the incident he
\nhimself has  visited the house of the appellants where he
\nstayed in the night he took his meal there and after
\ntaking tea in the morning he came back to his house.
\nDeceased was second wife of the appellant No. 1 there was
\nno custom of dowry and their caste and in case of second
\nmarriage given and taking of the dowry is most uncommon.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in
\nthe matter of Appasaheb & Another v. Sate of Maharashtra1
\nin which Apex Court has held that a demand for money on
\naccount of some financial stringency or for meeting some
\nurgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot
\nbe termed as a demand of dowry as the said word is
\nnormally understood.\n<\/p>\n
10.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the
\nState\/respondent opposed the appeal and argued that
\ndeceased Indranibai died in the house of appellants under
\nabnormal circumstances within 8 months of her marriage,
\nthe evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is
\nsufficient for drawing inference that soon before her
\ndeath she was subjected cruelty and torture in connection
\nwith the demand of dowry and present appellants are the
\nperson who have compelled the deceased to end her life.
\nThe conviction and sentenced awarded to the appellants are
\nbased on reliable and clinching evidence.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In order to appreciate the contention of the parties,
\nI have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the
\nprosecution and the defence of the appellants. It is not
\ndisputed that present appellant No. 1 is a husband of the
\ndeceased and appellant NO. 2 is a father-in-law of the
\ndeceased  Indranibai who died within 8 months of her
\nmarriage in abnormal circumstances in the house of the
\nappellants her death was abnormal, cause of death was
\nasphyxia as a result of suspecting poisoning. PW22 Dr.
\nRajendra Maheshwari who conducted autopsy has deposed in
\nPara-5 of his evidence that smell of poison was present in
\nthe abdomen of the deceased and no other injury was found
\nover the body. He has specifically admitted in his cross
\nexamination that death was as a result of consuming of the
\npoison.\n<\/p>\n
12.  As regard the cruelty, torture and abetment of
\nsuicide is concerned the cruelty has been defied in
\nSection 498A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
    498-A.   Explanation.-For  the  purposes  of   this
\nsection, “cruelty”  means-\n<\/p>\n
    (a)  any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is
\n       likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
\n       grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
\n       mental or physical) of the woman; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(b)  harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
\na view to coercing her or any person related to her to
\nmeet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
\nsecurity or is on account of failure by her or any person
\nrelated to her to meet such demand. ]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.  A new provision in Evidence Act for presumption as to<\/p>\n
abatement of suicide by a married woman has been added  in <\/p>\n
the Year 1983 vide amendment Act 46 of 1983 which reads as  <\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       [  113A.  Presumption  as  to  abetment  of
\n       suicide   by   a  married  woman-When   the
\n       question  is  whether  the  commission   of
\n       suicide by a woman had been abetted by  her
\n       husband or any relative of her husband  and
\n       it  is shown that she had committed suicide
\n       within  a  period of seven years  from  the
\n       date  of  her marriage and that her husband
\n       or   such  relative  of  her  husband   had
\n       subjected  her  to cruelty, the  court  may
\n       presume,  having regard to  all  the  other
\n       circumstances  of  the  case,   that   such
\n       suicide had been abetted by her husband  or
\n       by such relative of her husband.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation.-  For  the  purposes  of  this
\n       section,  “cruelty”  shall  have  the  same
\n       meaning  as  in Section 498A of the  Indian
\n       Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  In the present case deceased Indranibai died within 8<\/p>\n
months of her marriage according to autopsy report Ex.  P-\n<\/p>\n
20 and statement of PW22 Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari  she died  <\/p>\n
by  consuming poison and same is abnormal death  within  7 <\/p>\n
years  of  her marriage. PW1 Kotwar Melandas  has  deposed  <\/p>\n
that  death  of deceased was informed to him by  appellant<\/p>\n
No.  2  he also informed the death to the parents  of  the<\/p>\n
deceased, second day father of the deceased came  then  at <\/p>\n
his  instance  he went to Police Station and  lodged  Marg<\/p>\n
intimation vide Ex. P-12 then Tahsildar and Police Officer<\/p>\n
came  and  prepared the inquest report. PW3 Prahlad  Verma <\/p>\n
and  PW4  Ramawatar Verma has also admitted that Tahsildar  <\/p>\n
and  Police officer prepared inquest report vide Ex.  P-4.\n<\/p>\n
PW5  Ramanand Patel father of the deceased has deposed  in  <\/p>\n
his  evidence that his daughter Indranibai died  within  8<\/p>\n
months  of her marriage in the house of appellants  before<\/p>\n
Diwali  festival. On 17th. Appellant No. 2  telephoned  to<\/p>\n
him  at  about  9 P.M. in which he demanded  Rs.  20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
for  construction of the house then he told that he is not<\/p>\n
in  position to give such amount, second day when he  came<\/p>\n
from field he saw his daughter in his house on being asked<\/p>\n
she  told  that she has been sent for taking Rs. 20,000\/-,<\/p>\n
appellant  No. 1 will also come then he told his  daughter<\/p>\n
that  it is not possible for him to arrange   Rs. 20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
for  them.  At evening  appellant No. 2 came to his  house<\/p>\n
and  after  some time he repeated demand of  Rs.  20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
which  he  explained. On 19th  his daughter and  appellant<\/p>\n
No.  2  went back to their house he also went to the house<\/p>\n
of  the appellant along with Ramlal, Gajanand and Paretram<\/p>\n
where they stayed in the night and they took the meal.  On<\/p>\n
second day 20\/10\/2006 after taking tea he came back  along<\/p>\n
with other persons from the house of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
15.  On 20\/10\/2006 he received the telephone call that her
\ndaughter had died then on second day he went along with 40-
\n50 persons of his village to the village of appellants. He
\nsaw the  dead body of his daughter.  He searched the
\nKotwar and went to the police station then Police Officer
\ncame and inquired. He has also deposed that blood were
\ncoming from the nostril and there was symptoms of pressing
\nof neck. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted and after
\nlast rites to the dead body he came back to his house. He
\nhas admitted that his statement Ex. P-5 was recorded by
\nTahsildar. PW6 Mongrabai, elder aunt of the deceased has
\ncorroborated  the statement of PW5 Ramanand Patel to the
\nextent of information relating to death of deceased,
\ndemand of money and death of deceased and report. PW8
\nSahodrabai, mother of the deceased has corroborated the
\nstatement of her husband PW5 Ramanand Patel, PW9 Ramlal
\nMarar the elder brother of the father of the deceased,
\nPW10 Paretram, PW11 Gajanand Patel have also supported the
\nstatement of Ramanand Patel.\n<\/p>\n
16.   In  the  present case when father  of  the  deceased<\/p>\n
informed by the appellants then he came to the village and<\/p>\n
saw  the  dead body of her daughter he went to the  Police<\/p>\n
Station  where Kotwar lodged the Marg intimation.  Inquest<\/p>\n
was  prepared.  Tahsildar has recorded  the  statement  on<\/p>\n
21\/10\/2006  vide Ex. P-5 where father of the deceased  has<\/p>\n
stated  the demand of  money and series of incidents  took<\/p>\n
place  before the death of his daughter. Statement of  the<\/p>\n
PW5  Ramanand  Patel  is  corroborated   by  his  previous<\/p>\n
statement  Ex.  P-5 recorded by Tahsildar and  from  other<\/p>\n
witnesses,  PW1  Kotwar-Melandas,   PW6  Mongarabai,   PW7    <\/p>\n
Nandlal  Verma,  PW8 Sahodrabai , PW9 Ramlal  Marar,  PW10    <\/p>\n
Paretram  and  PW11  Gajanand there are some  discrepancy,  <\/p>\n
contradiction and omission in their previous statement and<\/p>\n
with  the statement of other witnesses. The witnesses  are<\/p>\n
villagers  they  have  substantially deposed  against  the<\/p>\n
appellants. Statement recorded  under Section 161  of  the<\/p>\n
Code   is a brief, statement does not take place of detail<\/p>\n
evidence  given  during the trial in  the  Court.  In  the<\/p>\n
present case PW5 Ramanand Patel father of the deceased has   <\/p>\n
categorically  deposed that on 17\/10\/06  appellant  No.  2<\/p>\n
demanded  Rs.  20,000\/- for construction of his  house  on<\/p>\n
second  day  18\/10\/06 her daughter came to his  house  and<\/p>\n
again repeated the demand and told that she has been  sent<\/p>\n
for getting money.\n<\/p>\n
17.  On 18\/10\/06 at evening present appellant No. 2
\nhimself came to the house of father of the deceased where
\nhe  repeated demand. Father of the deceased along with
\nother persons went to house of the appellants along with
\nappellant No. 2 and deceased where they stayed in the
\nnight, they took meal and after taking tea in the morning
\nthey  went back to their village. On same day at about 5.
\n30 deceased committed suicide by consuming poison when PW5
\nRamanand Patel came to know of the fact of commission of
\nsuicide then he went to the village of appellants not
\nalone but with other 30-40 persons he saw the dead body of
\nhis daughter and went to the Police Station along with
\nKotwar for lodging the report where Kotwar has lodged the
\nreport. Autopsy report and statement of PW22 Dr. Rajendra
\nMaheshwari reveal that froth  and blood were coming out
\nfrom both the nostrils, light swelling were present over
\nface. One abrasion 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. was found over the left
\nside of the face. She was carrying pregnancy 6-8 weeks.
\nPW5 Ramanand Patel has also deposed in his evidence blood
\nwere coming out from her nostril and symptoms of pressing
\nneck was also present. Blood from the nostrils and
\nabrasion over the face were visible and these symptoms
\ncaused doubt upon her normal death. Symptoms  relating to
\npressing neck has not been supported by the medical
\nevidence same is exaggerated, when there was no abnormal
\ncircumstances then there was no propriety to accompany the
\nappellant No. 2 and the deceased by her father and other 3
\npersons and to stay in the house of the appellants. These
\ncircumstances are sufficient for drawing the inference of
\nabnormal circumstances which the father of deceased want
\nto pacify therefore he accompanied along with other
\nresponsible persons and also stayed at night to take
\nproper and ample opportunity to pacify the situation  and
\nwhen according to him the situation became normal then he
\ncame back to his house and same day deceased committed
\nsuicide.\n<\/p>\n
18.   As held in case of  Appasaheb (Supra) the demand for<\/p>\n
money  on  account  of some financial  stringency  or  for<\/p>\n
meeting  some  urgent domestic expenses or for  purchasing <\/p>\n
manure  cannot  be termed as a demand for  dowry.  In  the<\/p>\n
present  case  the demand of Rs. 20,000\/- for construction<\/p>\n
of  the house may be with condition of repay or not cannot<\/p>\n
be  termed  as a demand of dowry. The evidence adduced  on <\/p>\n
behalf  of  the prosecution clearly shows that  appellants<\/p>\n
have  demand  money for construction of work  and  not  in<\/p>\n
terms  of  dowry  therefore it  cannot  be  inferred  that<\/p>\n
appellant has demanded dowry.\n<\/p>\n
19.   In  the  case  of  domestic violence  or  harassment<\/p>\n
normally  the  affected person i.e. daughter -in-law  does<\/p>\n
not  report  or  inform  anyone about  the  harassment  or<\/p>\n
torturous  attitude of her husband or in  -laws  to  other<\/p>\n
persons  but  as  and when she gets the  opportunity,  she<\/p>\n
informs about it to her parents. The parents of the  bride<\/p>\n
normally  do  not  react  immediately  but  wait  for   an<\/p>\n
appropriate   time,  in  the hope of  amicable  settlement<\/p>\n
between  the  parties  and to avoid further  complications<\/p>\n
which  may  arise in future. But when the  matter  becomes<\/p>\n
intolerable then the daughter-in-law or the affected  lady<\/p>\n
discloses  the torturous attitude of her husband  and  in-\n<\/p>\n
laws,  to the police, neighbour and other persons  related<\/p>\n
to   her   to   get  the  dispute  resolved   with   their<\/p>\n
intervention.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In such case specific instance of harassment &
\ntorture is not possible and after the death of bride the
\ndetails of harassment & torture is also not possible, but
\nit may be inferred  from the evidence of parents & other
\nrelatives of the deceased and the circumstances that the
\ndeceased was subjected to harassment & torture.\n<\/p>\n
21.  In the present case deceased was carrying pregnancy
\nof 6-8 weeks and thereby not only she has killed her life
\nbut also stopped the birth of her own child. It was not a
\nnormal step taken by her and it was not possible for her
\nto take drastic step for ending her life even during
\npregnancy.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Statement of father of the deceased PW5 Ramanand
\nPatel corroborated by the statement of independent
\nwitnesses statement recorded by the Tahsildar vide Ex. P-5
\nin which Ramanand Patel has categorically deposed that on
\n17\/10\/06 appellant NO. 2 demanded Rs. 20,000\/-. On
\n18\/10\/06 appellant sent the deceased for bringing Rs.
\n20,000\/- from him, appellant NO. 2 also visited maternal
\nhouse of the deceased for taking money. On 19\/10\/06 father
\nof the deceased and other persons  along with deceased,
\nappellant NO. 2 came to the house of the appellant No.2
\nwhere PW5 Ramanand Patel along with other persons stayed
\nin the house of the appellants and on 20\/10\/06 he went
\nback along with other persons and on very day at evening
\ndeceased committed suicide by consuming poison the
\naforesaid circumstances are linked and closed to each
\nother and are sufficient to give rice the presumption that
\nwithin 3 days appellants compelled the deceased  for
\nbrining Rs. 20,000\/- from her maternal house and failing
\nsuch on same day she committed suicide these circumstances
\nare completely against the appellants and sufficient to
\ngive rise the presumption that appellant are man who has
\ncommitted cruelty and torture upon the deceased and as a
\nresult of such torture and cruelty she committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
23.    Section  113(A) of the Evidence  Act  provides  for<\/p>\n
presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married  women <\/p>\n
and  makes  the  provisions that Court may presume  having<\/p>\n
regard  to  all other circumstances of the case that  such<\/p>\n
suicide has been abated by husband or by such relatives of<\/p>\n
her husband.\n<\/p>\n
24.  In the present case evidence adduced on behalf of the
\nprosecution is sufficient for drawing the inference in
\nterms of Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act that
\nappellants have committed cruelty and torture upon the
\ndeceased who was wife of appellant NO. 1 and daughter in
\nlaw of appellant NO. 2 as a result of such cruelty and
\ntorture deceased had taken drastic steps of ending her
\nlife specially when she was carrying the pregnancy of 6-8
\nweeks. After appreciating the evidence available on record
\nlearned Courts below has convicted and sentenced the
\nappellants as aforementioned. Conviction of the appellants
\nare based on credible  and clinching evidence sustainable
\nunder the law.\n<\/p>\n
25.  As  regard the question of sentence is concerned
\npresent appellants have been sentenced under Sections 498-
\nA\/34 and 306\/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
\nrigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500\/-
\nin default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for 3 months to each appellants and
\nrigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500\/-
\nin default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for 3 months to each appellants.
\nTaking into consideration the commission of suicide within
\n8 months of her marriage of the woman aged about 22 years
\nwho was pregnant at the time of such commission of the
\nsuicide. The present appellants does not deserves any
\nsympathy in the sentence imposed upon them. Consequently,
\nthis criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is
\nhereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 578 OF 2007 1. Vinod Kumar Patel 2. Jeturam Patel …Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. ! Mr. […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 - 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\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-03T22:57:04+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T22:57:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3120,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T22:57:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 - 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\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-03T22:57:04+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T22:57:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009"},"wordCount":3120,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009","name":"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T22:57:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-kumar-patel-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinod Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/207845","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=207845"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207845\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}