{"id":209032,"date":"1998-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998"},"modified":"2018-04-22T06:49:59","modified_gmt":"2018-04-22T01:19:59","slug":"rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: M Mukherjee<\/div>\n
Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJAYYAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t03\/03\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nM.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 1998
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t     Hon’ble Mr, Justice M.K. Mukherjee
\n\t     Hon’ble Mr, Justice S.S. Mohammed Quadri
\nM.P. Vinod , Adv. for the appellant
\nE.M.S. Anam,  G. Prakash,  Advs. (M.T. George) Adv (N.P) for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nM.K Mukherjee, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Within 3-2\/2 years of her marriage Sanalkumari, a young
\nhousewife, met\twith her death on October 5, 1987 by falling
\nin a  well in  her matrimonial\thome. Alleging that it was a
\n`dowry death’  and that\t her husband  (the appellant  before
\nus), mother-in-law  and two  sisters-in-law were responsible
\nfor the\t same a\t case was registered against them. Following
\nthe charge-sheet  (challan) submitted  by the Police and the
\ncommittal enquiry  held by a Magistrate, they were placed on
\ntrial  before  the  Sessions  Judge,  Thiruvananthapuram  to
\nanswer a charge under Section 304B I.P.C. The trial ended in
\nan acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby the State
\nof Kerala  filed an  appeal and\t the mother  of the deceased
\nfiled an  appeal and  the mother  of the  deceased  filed  a
\nrevision petition in the High Court. In disposing of them by
\na common  judgment the\tHigh Court reversed the acquittal of
\nthe appellant  and convicted  him for the above offence. The
\nacquittal of  others was  however upheld. The above judgment
\nof the\tHigh  Court  is\t under\tchallenge  in  these  appeal
\npreferred by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution  case briefly stated is as follows: The
\nappellant married  the deceased,  daughter of P.Ws. 1 (Leela
\nBai) and 2 (Madhavan Nadar) on June 7, 1984 in the Malamkara
\nSyrian Catholic\t Church, Kanjiramkulam.\t At the\t time of the
\nmarriage he  obtained by why of dowry 20 cents of land and 2
\ngold ornaments\twroth 20  sovereigns. The  document for\t the
\ntransfer of  the land  was executed  by P.Ws  1 and 2 on the
\ndate of\t the betrothal.\t Even on  the 3rd day after marriage
\nthe appellant  started expressing  dis-satisfaction  on\t the
\nquantum of dowry. As  he had by then started construction of
\na building  on a  land belonging  to his  father availing  a
\nloan and  the loan amount was exhausted, he approached P.Ws.
\n1 and  2 for  the balance  amount required  to construct the
\nbuilding. Since\t P.Ws. 1  and 2 failed to meet his demand he
\nand the\t other members\tof his\tfamily started harassing and
\nill-treating the  deceased. In\tthe meantime,  the  deceased
\nhad become  pregnant. She was, however, not allowed to go to
\nher parents’ house prior to the delivery; and even after she
\nwas admitted in the hospital for the delivery, they were not
\nintimated about\t it. The  deceased gave\t birth to  a  female
\nchild on  July 6,  1985. As  a result  of the mental torture
\nduring pregnancy,  she developed  post partum  psychosis and
\nwas under  the treatment  of P.W.  12 (Dr.  M.S Sivakaumar).
\nFinding the  pitiable predicament  of the  deceased P. Ws. 1
\nand 2 gave Rs. 50,000\/- in case to the appellant as demanded
\nand obtained   a release of the 20 cents of land transferred
\nin his\tname. Thereafter,  the appellant  put forth a demand
\nfor an\tadditional amount  of Rs. 10,000\/- and 3 sovereigns.
\nAs that\t demand was not immediately met by P.Ws. 1 and 2 the
\nappellant and  other members  of  his  family  continued  to
\ntorture and  harass the\t deceased. When mt he torture became
\nunbearable she committed suicide by jumping into the well in
\nthe house of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled
\nagainst him  and denied\t the prosecution  story of demand of
\ndowry and  torture and harassment on that score. He asserted
\nthat he\t had a\thappy conjugal\tlife and  that her death was
\nowing to  an accidental\t fall in  the  well.  Though  during
\ncross-examination  of  P.Ws.  1\t and  23  it  was  not\teven
\nsuggested to them that the deceased was not his wife, in his
\nexamination under  Section 313\tCr. P.C. he denied that fact
\nalso.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of their  respective cases  the prosecution
\nexamined 20 witnesses and the defence examined 6 witnesses.
\nOn consideration  of the evidence adduced by the parties the
\ntrial Court first recorded the following findings:-\n<\/p>\n
     (i) the  deceased was  the legally\t married wife of the
\n     appellant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) she committed suicide on October 5, 1987;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) there was a demand of dowry in the form of landed
\n     property, cash  and gold  ornaments  for  the  marriage
\n     between the appellant and the deceased; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) a  dowry problem  was\t involved  in  the  marriage
\n     relationship between he appellant and the deceased.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The trial\tCourt  proceeded  to  consider\twhether\t the
\nrequirements  of   Section  304B(1)  I.P.C.  were  factually
\nestablished in the case with the following observations :-\n<\/p>\n
     ” As  noticed above  the demand for
\n     Rs.   50,000\/-   could   not   have
\n     continued beyond  September,  1986.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     But P.  Ws.  1  and  2  state  that
\n     immediately after\tthe  transaction
\n     evidenced by Exhibit P3 and Exhibit
\n     D1 the  Ist accused  made a  demand
\n     for  a  further  payment  of    Rs.
\n     10,000\/-  as  given  to  the  elder
\n     daughter  and   also   wanted   the
\n     deficit of\t 3  sovereigns\tin  gold
\n     ornaments. P.  W. 2  says that  his
\n     daughter was  in tears hearing this
\n     and  she  stated  that  if\t further
\n     amounts were  to be paid to the Ist
\n     accused  her  younger  brother  and
\n     sisters  would   not  get\teven  10
\n     cents. If\tthere had  been\t such  a
\n     demand for\t payment of Rs. 10,000\/-
\n     or for  3 sovereigns gold ornaments
\n     and cruelty  and harassment on that
\n     account till  Sanalkumari’s  death,
\n     then it will be a “dowry death”.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     and answered the same in favour of the accused with the
\nfollowing words:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Here the\tevidence shows\tthat the
\n     squabbles between\tthe parties over
\n     allotment of  the dowry  could have
\n     caused mental  pain to the deceased
\n     before September,\t1986. But  there
\n     is no  acceptable proof  of demands
\n     for dowry thereafter and harassment
\n     on that account. The evidence about
\n     the incident  in 1987 only indicate
\n     that  the\t mother-in-law\tand  the
\n     daughter-in-law possibly  could not
\n     get along\twell  but  there  is  no
\n     proof of  a rift  between\tthe  Ist
\n     accused and  the deceased. Thus the
\n     prosecution has  not  succeeded  in
\n     proving that  the\taccused\t persons
\n     were   guilty    of   cruelty    or
\n     harassment\t  as   contemplated   by
\n     Sections  304B   and  Section  498A
\n     I.P.C.  and   that\t the   death  of
\n     Sanalkumari was a dowry death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t appeal\t the  High  Court  concurred  with  all\t the
\nfindings recorded  by the  trial Court against the appellant
\nbut disagreeing\t with the above quoted finding in his favour
\npassed the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Keeping in\t view the well settled principle of law that
\nan order of acquittal ought not to be set aside unless it is
\nfound to  be patently wrong and wholly unsustainable we have
\nperused the  entire evidence and the judgments of the Courts
\nbelow. Our  such exercise  persuades  us  to  hold,  at\t the
\noutset, that  the concurrent  findings of  fact recorded b y
\nthe  Courts   below  in\t  favour  of   the  prosecution\t are
\nunassailable and  need no  interference whatsoever.  We\t are
\ntherefore left\twith the question whether the High Court was
\njustified in  reversing the  finding of the trial Court that
\nthere  was  no\tsatisfactory  evidence\tto  prove  that\t the
\ndeceased was  subjected to  cruelty  or\t harassment  by\t the
\nappellant for or in connection with any demand for dowry.\n<\/p>\n
     It stands\testablished from the evidence, both oral and
\ndocumentary, that  since before\t the date  of  marriage\t the
\nappellant had  had been\t insisting upon\t dowry\tand  on\t the
\nbetrothal day  itself certain  land had to be transferred in
\nhis favour.  The evidence  further establishes\tthat at\t the
\ntime of\t marriage some\tgold ornaments\twere  given  to\t the
\ndeceased. Then\tagain it  si the  concurrent finding  of the
\nCourts below  that since  the 3rd  day\tafter  marriage\t the
\nappellant  was\t making\t further   demands  of\tdowry  which
\nultimately compelled  P.Ws. 1 and 2 to give him a sum of Rs.
\n50,000\/- on  September 10, 1986. The evidence on record also
\ndemonstrates that  from before\tmarriage and  even till\t two
\nyears thereafter  t he\tappellant was  continuing  with\t his
\ndemand for  dowry and  that the\t deceased was  subjected  to
\ncruelty, both  mental and  physical,  on  that\tscore  since
\nmarriage. If  in the  background  of  the  above  facts\t and
\ncircumstances, the relevant evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 and P.W.
\n5 (Sudhakaran),\t a cousin  of the  deceased, is\t read  there
\ncannot be  escape from\tthe conclusion\tthat  the  appellant
\ncontinued with\this demands  for dowry\tand ill-treated\t the
\ndeceased till  the  month  of  September  1987.\t The  patent
\ninfirmity in the judgment of the  trial Court in this regard
\nis that\t it  considered\t the  demand  subsequently  made  in
\nisolation and  also failed  to notice  material evidence  on
\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n
     P. Ws. 1 and 2 categorically stated that even after the
\nsum of Rs. 50,000\/- was paid the appellant made a demand for
\nfurther payment\t of Rs.\t 10,000\/- on  the specious plea that
\nthey (P.Ws.  1 and  2) had  at the  time of  the marriage of
\ntheir elder daughter given Rs. 60,000\/- as dowry and that he
\nwas yet\t to receive  gold ornaments  worth 3  sovereigns, as
\npromised at  the time  of  his\tmarriage.  It  is  also\t the
\nevidence of  P.W.2 that\t his daughter  was in  tears hearing
\nthis. The  evidence of\tP.Ws.1 and  2 in  this regard stands
\namply corroborated  by the  evidence of P.W. 5. He testified
\nthat on September 27, 1987 the appellant, accompanied by the
\ndeceased went  to his  house  and  told\t him  that  he\t(the
\nappellant) was to get a sum of Rs. 10,000\/- and 3 sovereigns
\nas the\tbalance of  dowry and that  he should intervene into
\nthe matter  and persuade P.Ws. 1 and 2 to handover the same.
\nIn view\t of the\t insistence of\tthe  appellant\the  gave  an
\nassurance to  him that\the would  talk of  P.Ws. 1 and 2 and
\nensure that  the money\tis paid\t and ornaments given to him.
\nThereafter, P.W.5 met P.WS. 1 and 2 and asked them to accede
\nto the\tdemand of  the appellant.  Before, however, he could
\ncommunicate to\tthe appellant  the outcome  of his talk with
\nP.Ws. 1\t and 2\tthe deceased  met with\ther death. The trial
\nCourt disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 5 as in the statement
\nrecorded under\tSection 161 Cr. P.C. he did not mention that
\nhe agreed to request P.Ws. 1 and 2 to meet the demand of the
\nappellant nor  did he  mention that  he went to the house of
\nP.Ws. 1\t and 2\tand they  told him that they would accede to
\nthe demand.  Even if  it is assumed that P.W.5’s omission to
\nmake such  statements  amount  to  material  contradictions,
\nstill then,  it would  not in  any way impair his unrebutted
\nevidence that  the appellant came to his house and asked for
\nthe additional\tdowry. Having  carefully  gone\tthrough\t his
\nevidence we  find no  reason whatsoever\t to disbelieve.\t The
\nevidence  of  cruelty  and  harassment\tfor  non-payment  of
\nadditional  dowry   is\talso   furnished  by  C.W.1  (Sister
\nVeronica), who\tat the material time was the Mother Superior
\nof the\tlocal ‘Daughters  of Mary’  Convent and known to the
\nparties from  before   and  P.W.6  (Gangadharan\t Nadar),  an
\nAdvocate practising  in the Courts at Nayyattinkara. C.W.1’s
\ngood offices  were requisitioned  by P.Ws.  1 and 2 to bring
\nharmony\t into\tthe  life  of  the  deceased  subsequent  to
\nSeptember 10,  1986, and   when C.W.1 was approached by them
\nP.W.6 was  present. Both of them stated that P.W.1 told them
\nthat the  appellant was\t quarrelling with  the deceased\t for
\ngetting more  money  as\t dowry.\t Both  these  witnesses\t are
\nindependent witnesses  and there  is no reason whatsoever to
\ndisbelieve them. While on this point we cannot also ignore t
\nhe stand taken by the appellant in the statement made by him
\nunder Section  313 Cr.\tP.C. that  the deceased\t was not his
\nwife.  Obviously   because  his\t continuous  and  persistent
\ndemands for  dowry were\t not being met by P.Ws. 1 and 2, the
\nappellant went to the extent of even disowning the deceased.
\nNeedless to say such conduct of the appellant is an eloquent
\nproof  of  his\thaving\tsubjected  the\tdeceased  to  mental
\ncruelty. Unfortunately, all these aspects of the matter were
\nnot  considered\t  by  the   trial  Court   from\t   a  proper
\nperspective.\n<\/p>\n
     Having analysed the entire evidence on record we are in
\ncomplete agreement with the High Court that the deceased was
\nsubjected to  cruelty by  the appellant for payment of dowry
\nsoon before  her death\tfor which she committed suicide. The
\nconviction of  the appellant under Section 304B I.P.C. must,
\ntherefore,  be\t upheld.  Since\t the  sentence\tof  rigorous
\nimprisonment for  seven years  awarded to  the appellant for
\nhis conviction\tis the\tminimum prescribed,  the question of
\ninterfering with the same also does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefor,  do not  find any  merit in these appeals
\ndismiss the same.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 Author: M Mukherjee Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: RAJAYYAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/1998 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 1998 Present: Hon’ble […]<\/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-209032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 - 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\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-22T01:19:59+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-22T01:19:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2129,\"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\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\",\"name\":\"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-22T01:19:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 - 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\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-22T01:19:59+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-22T01:19:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998"},"wordCount":2129,"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\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998","name":"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-22T01:19:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajayyan-vs-state-of-kerala-anr-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajayyan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 3 March, 1998"}]},{"@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\/209032","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=209032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}