{"id":211062,"date":"2009-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-12T05:33:11","modified_gmt":"2016-03-12T00:03:11","slug":"gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009<\/div>\n
                            [1]\n\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR\n               RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR\n  --------------------------------------------------------\n\n           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 306 of 2008\n                  GAUTAM\n                   V\/S\n                       STATE\n\n  Date of Order : 17.07.2009\n\n\n          HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J.\n         HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J.\n\n\n  Mr. SHMBHOO SINGH, for the appellant\n  Mr. K.R. BISHNOI, PP, for the respondent\n\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n                                     -----\n\n\nBY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE A.M. KAPADIA, J.)<\/pre>\n
1.Challenge in this appeal filed under Sec.374 of the<\/p>\n
 Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’, for short)<\/p>\n
 is to the correctness of the judgment and order<\/p>\n
 dated 27.02.2008 rendered in Sessions Case No.75<\/p>\n
 of 2006 (74\/2006) by the learned Addl. Sessions<\/p>\n
 Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur, by which sole<\/p>\n
 appellant Gautam (‘accused’, for short) has been<\/p>\n
 convicted for commission of the offence under
\n                            [2]<\/p>\n
 Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, for short)<\/p>\n
 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of<\/p>\n
 Rs.5,000\/-, in    default of payment of fine to<\/p>\n
 undergo further simple imprisonment for one year.<\/p>\n
2.The prosecution case, as disclosed from the FIR<\/p>\n
 and unfolded during trial is as under:<\/p>\n
  2.1 On 29.05.2006, PW7 complainant Nanu Ram<\/p>\n
    lodged   a   written   report   at   Police   Station<\/p>\n
    Bichhiwara inter-alia stating that on 28.05.2006<\/p>\n
    at about 8.00 PM on the occasion of Prakash’s<\/p>\n
    marriage,    people    of    Kalasuwa    Fala    had<\/p>\n
    assembled and after worshipping Lord Ganapati<\/p>\n
    they were dancing near the house of Prakash.<\/p>\n
    Gautam, a neighbour of Prakash, also came<\/p>\n
    there for dancing (Goomar) and at about 9.00<\/p>\n
    PM, Gautam started quarrelling with complainant<\/p>\n
    and also pushed him, as a result of which he fell<\/p>\n
    down and received injury on his right hand.<\/p>\n
    Jeeva s\/o Kana and Basu s\/o Kachara persuaded<\/p>\n
    Gautam and thereafter he went towards his
\n                           [3]<\/p>\n
 house, however, returned after some time and<\/p>\n
 asked Jeeva as to who he was to expel him from<\/p>\n
 dancing and told that he would not return<\/p>\n
 without killing him and saying so he picked a<\/p>\n
 stone and threw it at the chest of Jeeva as a<\/p>\n
 result of which Jeeva on sustaining injury fell<\/p>\n
 down and died at the spot.\n<\/p>\n
2.2 On submitting the above written report by<\/p>\n
 Constable     Lalit   Kumar        at   Police   Station<\/p>\n
 Bichhiwara,    FIR    was      registered   against   the<\/p>\n
 accused for offence under Section 302 IPC and<\/p>\n
 started investigation.\n<\/p>\n
2.3 On completion of investigation, accused was<\/p>\n
 chargesheeted in the Court of Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
 Magistrate, Dungarpur, who committed the case<\/p>\n
 to the Court of Sessions, Dungarpur as the<\/p>\n
 offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC being<\/p>\n
 exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.\n<\/p>\n
                          [4]<\/p>\n
2.4 The learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
 (Fast Track) Dungarpur (trial Court, for short),<\/p>\n
 to whom the case was made over for trial,<\/p>\n
 framed      charge    against      the    accused      for<\/p>\n
 commission of offence punishable under Sec.302<\/p>\n
 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.5 The charge was read over and explained to<\/p>\n
 the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed<\/p>\n
 to be innocence, therefore, he was put to trial.<\/p>\n
2.6 To prove the culpability of the accused, the<\/p>\n
 prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses<\/p>\n
 and relied upon their oral testimony.                  The<\/p>\n
 prosecution also produced 17 documents which<\/p>\n
 were relied upon during the course of trial and<\/p>\n
 therefore    they    were     exhibited   and   read    in<\/p>\n
 evidence.\n<\/p>\n
2.7 The trial Court, thereafter, recorded statement<\/p>\n
 of accused under Sec.313 of the Code, wherein
\n                         [5]<\/p>\n
   accused pleaded innocence and denied the case<\/p>\n
   of prosecution in toto and stated that a false<\/p>\n
   case has been filed against him, however, he led<\/p>\n
   no evidence in his defence.\n<\/p>\n
  2.8 On appreciation, analysis and scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
   evidence on record, trial Court came to the<\/p>\n
   conclusion that homicidal death of the deceased<\/p>\n
   has been proved and the accused was the author<\/p>\n
   of fatal injury caused to the deceased by<\/p>\n
   throwing stone on him, therefore, the complicity<\/p>\n
   of the accused for the commission of offence<\/p>\n
   under Sec. 302 IPC is established.           On the<\/p>\n
   aforesaid finding, the trial Court convicted and<\/p>\n
   sentenced him as stated above, which has given<\/p>\n
   rise to the instant appeal by the accused.<\/p>\n
3.Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned Advocate for the<\/p>\n
 accused, does not dispute the factum of murder of<\/p>\n
 Jeeva having taken place, therefore, according to<\/p>\n
 him, homicidal death of Jeeva is proved, however,
\n                           [6]<\/p>\n
he submits that it is not a case of murder<\/p>\n
punishable under Sec.302 IPC but is a case of<\/p>\n
culpable    homicide     not    amounting       to     murder<\/p>\n
punishable under Sec.304 Part II IPC as there was<\/p>\n
no intention on the part of accused Gautam to kill<\/p>\n
Jeeva because the dispute arose between accused<\/p>\n
Gautam and Nanu Ram at the time of dancing. To<\/p>\n
buttress the aforesaid submission, he has taken<\/p>\n
this Court to the evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses    and   submitted      that    the        order   of<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence recorded against accused<\/p>\n
Gautam under Sec.302 is not well founded and<\/p>\n
therefore it may be altered to Sec.304 Part II and<\/p>\n
as he has already undergone imprisonment for<\/p>\n
round about three years, therefore, his custodial<\/p>\n
sentence may be treated as substantive sentence<\/p>\n
for the offence committed by him, and he may be<\/p>\n
set at liberty. Thus, he prayed to allow this appeal<\/p>\n
in part by altering the conviction and sentence of<\/p>\n
the   accused.     He,    therefore,     urged       to   pass<\/p>\n
appropriate orders in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
                          [7]<\/p>\n
4.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. K.R.<\/p>\n
 Bishnoi has supported the judgment and order of<\/p>\n
 conviction   and   sentence   recorded    against   the<\/p>\n
 accused. According to him, there was intention on<\/p>\n
 the part of the accused to kill the deceased,<\/p>\n
 therefore, it is a case of murder punishable under<\/p>\n
 Sec.302 IPC and in view of this no interference is<\/p>\n
 called for in the impugned judgment and order. He,<\/p>\n
 therefore, urged to dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n
5.We have considered the submissions advanced by<\/p>\n
 learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
 impugned judgment and order. We have also gone<\/p>\n
 through record of the case and have re-appreciated<\/p>\n
 the evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.There is no dispute to the fact that deceased died a<\/p>\n
 homicidal death, however, we have reappreciated<\/p>\n
 the evidence in this regard. In this connection,<\/p>\n
 prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral
\n                               [8]<\/p>\n
     testimony    of PW11 Dr. Vinay       Jain,   who has<\/p>\n
     performed the postmortem on the dead body of the<\/p>\n
     deceased and also issued the Postmortem Report<\/p>\n
     Ex.P\/7.     On a conjoint reading of oral testimony of<\/p>\n
     PW11 Dr. Vinay Jain and Postmortem Report<\/p>\n
     Ex.P\/7, it transpires that the cause of death is the<\/p>\n
     injury on vital organ i.e. rapture of left lung and<\/p>\n
     hemorrhage leading to cardio respiratory failure.<\/p>\n
     Therefore, homicidal death of deceased Jeeva is<\/p>\n
     proved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.      Though the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
     has not disputed the incident in question, however,<\/p>\n
     accordingly to him, there was no enmity between<\/p>\n
     accused Gautam and the deceased and accused<\/p>\n
     Gautam had no intention to kill the deceased rather<\/p>\n
     his intention was only to cause injury to Nanu Ram<\/p>\n
     because there was dispute between him and Nanu<\/p>\n
     Ram in connection with dancing and therefore after<\/p>\n
     returning from his home, he pelted stone on Nanu<\/p>\n
     Ram and in between Jeeva intervened, therefore
\n                                  [9]<\/p>\n
     stone hit to Jeeva which has claimed his life.<\/p>\n
     Therefore, according to him, the act of the accused<\/p>\n
     is not an offence of murder but it is an offence of<\/p>\n
     culpable homicide not amounting to murder.<\/p>\n
8.      In light of the aforesaid submissions, now we<\/p>\n
     will   re-appreciate       the    evidence    of    relevant<\/p>\n
     witnesses    who     are    claiming     to   be    the   eye<\/p>\n
     witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.First of all, we advert to the oral testimony of PW1<\/p>\n
     Basu. He has inter-alia stated that he, Nanu Ram,<\/p>\n
     Mohan, Narayan, Leela, Jeeva and Prakash were<\/p>\n
     playing Goomar on the occasion of Prakash’s<\/p>\n
     marriage     and    there    started     quarrel    between<\/p>\n
     Gautam      and    Nanu     Ram    and   Gautam      started<\/p>\n
     beating Nanu Ram due to which Nanu Ram fell<\/p>\n
     down.      He further stated that he and Jeeva<\/p>\n
     separated    Gautam        and    Nanu   Ram       and    send<\/p>\n
     Gautam to his house, who came back shouting<\/p>\n
     after five minutes carrying with him a stone which
\n                          [10]<\/p>\n
 he pelted on Jeeva due to which Jeeva died and<\/p>\n
 after that Gautam fled away. In cross examination,<\/p>\n
 he stated that he saw that Gautam picked up a<\/p>\n
 stone from the western side of the field which was<\/p>\n
 of the weight less than one kg which he pelted on<\/p>\n
 Jeeva from a distance of 5-6 foot-steps and at that<\/p>\n
 time Nanu Ram was standing by the side of Jeeva.<\/p>\n
10. PW4 Miss Leela, an eye witness, who is sister of<\/p>\n
 deceased, has inter-alia testified that all were<\/p>\n
 dancing on the marriage occasion of Prakash.<\/p>\n
 Gautam and Nanu Ram made quarrel and Jeeva<\/p>\n
 and Basu persuaded them to go from that place.<\/p>\n
 Gautam thereafter came back and pelted stone<\/p>\n
 which hit Jeeva.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. PW6 Mohan, who is also claiming to be the eye<\/p>\n
 witness, has inter-alia testified that on the occasion<\/p>\n
 of Prakash’s marriage, at about 8-9 PM while they<\/p>\n
 were playing and singing songs, Nanulal and<\/p>\n
 Gautam started quarrelling, therefore, they were
\n                           [11]<\/p>\n
  ousted from ‘Ghoomar’ and Gautam was persuaded<\/p>\n
  to go home, who came back after some time and<\/p>\n
  pelted a stone which struck on the chest of Jeeva<\/p>\n
  as a result of which Jeeva became speechless and<\/p>\n
  fell down and thereafter died.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. PW7 Nanu Ram is also an eye witness, who filed<\/p>\n
  complaint Ex.P\/13 and has testified that first of all<\/p>\n
  Gautam quarrelled with him and fell on him,<\/p>\n
  therefore, Jeeva and Basu separated them and<\/p>\n
  after some time Guatam came and pelted stone<\/p>\n
  towards Jeeva which struck on the chest of Jeeva<\/p>\n
  and Jeeva died. In cross examination, he has<\/p>\n
  stated that there was no dispute between Gautam<\/p>\n
  and Jeeva and that at the place where the stone<\/p>\n
  was pelted, there were 7-8 persons and the stone<\/p>\n
  could strike to anyone but it struck Jeeva.       He<\/p>\n
  denied the suggestion that he was pelting stone<\/p>\n
  towards Gautam but it struck Jeeva.<\/p>\n
13.   PW13 Kana, father of deceased Jeeva, has also
\n                              [12]<\/p>\n
 testified on similar lines.        In cross examination, he<\/p>\n
 has in unequivocal terms stated that there was<\/p>\n
 dispute between Gautam and Nanu Ram and<\/p>\n
 Gautam pelted stone towards Nanu Ram which hit<\/p>\n
 Jeeva who came in between them and on inquiring<\/p>\n
 from accused, he told that he had pelted stone<\/p>\n
 towards Nanu Ram which hit Jeeva.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. On   reappraisal    of     the     evidence   of   above<\/p>\n
 mentioned eye witnesses, there is no manner of<\/p>\n
 doubt that PW7 Nanu Ram, who has lodged the<\/p>\n
 FIR, has resiled from the statement mentioned in<\/p>\n
 the FIR.   In the FIR, he has in unequivocal terms<\/p>\n
 stated that accused pelted stone towards Jeeva<\/p>\n
 whereas in oral testimony he has stated that when<\/p>\n
 Gautam pelted the stone there were 7-8 persons<\/p>\n
 and the stone could strike to anyone but it struck<\/p>\n
 Jeeva whereas PW13 Kana, father of deceased<\/p>\n
 Jeeva, in his cross examination has stated that<\/p>\n
 Gautam pelted stone towards Nanu Ram which hit<\/p>\n
 Jeeva who came in between them.\n<\/p>\n
                            [13]<\/p>\n
15.   On overall view of the matter, according to us,<\/p>\n
  accused was having no intention either to kill Nanu<\/p>\n
  Ram or deceased Jeeva. If there was intention to<\/p>\n
  kill anyone the accused would have come with<\/p>\n
  dangerous weapon but he came without weapon,<\/p>\n
  therefore, his act falls under Clause III of Sec.299,<\/p>\n
  which defines “culpable homicide not amounting to<\/p>\n
  murder”, punishable under Sec.304 Part II vis-\u00e0-<\/p>\n
  vis it can be termed as an act covered under<\/p>\n
  Exception IV of Sec.300 IPC, which also provides<\/p>\n
  punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to<\/p>\n
  murder,    if    the   act      is     committed     without<\/p>\n
  premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of<\/p>\n
  passion   upon    a    sudden        quarrel   and   without<\/p>\n
  offender having taken undue advantage or acted in<\/p>\n
  a cruel or unusual manner.             In the instant case,<\/p>\n
  there was dispute between Gautam and Nanu Ram<\/p>\n
  and the accused pelted stone towards Nanu Ram<\/p>\n
  which hit deceased Jeeva.            Therefore, in our view<\/p>\n
  the contention of the learned counsel that it is a
\n                             [14]<\/p>\n
 case falling under Sec. 304 Part II IPC is full of<\/p>\n
 merit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.Similar question arose before the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
 Tholan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1984 SC 759).<\/p>\n
 In    the   said    case,         the   accused    started<\/p>\n
 remonstrations     using     filthy     language   against<\/p>\n
 certain organizers of a chit fund in front of the<\/p>\n
 house of deceased, who had no connection with the<\/p>\n
 deceased.    The deceased came out of his house<\/p>\n
 and asked the accused to go away and the accused<\/p>\n
 on spur of moment gave only one blow with knife<\/p>\n
 to the deceased and pushed him to some distance.<\/p>\n
 In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that<\/p>\n
 though requisite intention to commit murder could<\/p>\n
 not be attributed to the accused, he wielded a<\/p>\n
 weapon like a knife and therefore he could be<\/p>\n
 attributed with knowledge that he was likely to<\/p>\n
 cause an injury which was likely to cause death<\/p>\n
 and that in such a situation though he could not be<\/p>\n
 convicted under Sec.302, he would be guilty of
\n                         [15]<\/p>\n
 committing an offence under Sec.304 Part II.<\/p>\n
17.The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
 the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the<\/p>\n
 instant case and at   the cost of repetition be it<\/p>\n
 stated that the accused had no intention either to<\/p>\n
 kill deceased Jeeva or Nanu Ram. If there was an<\/p>\n
 intention to kill anyone, he would have come with<\/p>\n
 dangerous weapon. Accused Gautam had a dispute<\/p>\n
 with Nanu Ram in connection with dancing, and<\/p>\n
 while he pelted the stone, it hit Jeeva, who on<\/p>\n
 receiving the injury died, as such at the most<\/p>\n
 knowledge can be attributed to the accused.<\/p>\n
 Furthermore, it is not the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
 that the accused came armed with weapon.       The<\/p>\n
 accused came without any weapon and he picked<\/p>\n
 up a stone at the spur of moment from the site of<\/p>\n
 incident, which was of the weight less than one kg,<\/p>\n
 therefore, intention cannot be attributed to the<\/p>\n
 accused.   Thus, according to us, the act of the<\/p>\n
 accused is not murder punishable under Sec.302
\n                           [16]<\/p>\n
 IPC, but it is a culpable homicide not amounting to<\/p>\n
 murder punishable under Sec.304 Part II IPC.<\/p>\n
18.Seen in the above context, appeal deserves to be<\/p>\n
 allowed in part and accordingly conviction and<\/p>\n
 sentence recorded for the offence under Sec.302<\/p>\n
 IPC deserves to be altered      from Sec.302 to 304<\/p>\n
 Part II IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.For the foregoing reasons, appeal succeeds in part<\/p>\n
 and accordingly it is partly allowed. Consequently,<\/p>\n
 the   conviction   and   sentence   recorded   against<\/p>\n
 accused Gautam      under Sec.302 is altered to<\/p>\n
 Sec.304 Part II IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous<\/p>\n
 imprisonment for four years and fine Rs.5,000, in<\/p>\n
 default of payment of fine to further undergone<\/p>\n
 simple imprisonment for one year.<\/p>\n
20.Accused is in jail.       He shall serve out the<\/p>\n
 remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
 ( SANGEET LODHA),J.             ( A.M. KAPADIA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
        [17]<\/p>\n
jpa\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ——————————————————– CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 306 of 2008 GAUTAM V\/S STATE Date of Order : 17.07.2009 HON’BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON’BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. Mr. SHMBHOO SINGH, for the appellant Mr. K.R. BISHNOI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nGautam vs State on 17 July, 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\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-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=\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-12T00:03:11+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T00:03:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2342,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T00:03:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 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":"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 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\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-12T00:03:11+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T00:03:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009"},"wordCount":2342,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009","name":"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T00:03:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-state-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gautam vs State on 17 July, 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\/211062","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=211062"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211062\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}