{"id":213418,"date":"2009-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-17T20:23:04","modified_gmt":"2018-10-17T14:53:04","slug":"narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n               Criminal Appeal No.860 of 1989\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                Narhar  son of Nankuram Lodhi\n                                          ...Petitioners\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n             State   of   Madhya  Pradesh (now CG)\n                                                   ...Respondents\n\n\n   {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (ii) of the Code of\n                  Criminal Procedure, 1973}\n\n\n!     Mr.  P.K.C.  Tiwari,  Senior Advocate  with  Mr.  Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the appellant\n\n\n\n^     Mr.    Ravindra   Agrawal,   Panel   Lawyer   for    the State\/respondent\n\n\n\n\n\nHONBLE MR. T.P. SHARMA,HONBLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR, JJ            \n\n\n       Dated:03\/12\/2009\n\n\n\n:       Judgment\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                    (3rd December, 2009)<\/p>\n
  The  following  judgment of the Court was  passed  by  T.P.<\/p>\n
Sharma, J: –\n<\/p>\n
1.    By  this  appeal under Section 374 (2) of the  Code  of<\/p>\n
  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  the  appellant  has  challenged<\/p>\n
  legality & propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of<\/p>\n
  sentence  dated 27-7-1989 passed by the Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
  Judge,  Khairagarh,  in  Sessions Trial  No.26\/89,  whereby<\/p>\n
  learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant<\/p>\n
  guilty  for commission of the offence of murder of  Shobha,<\/p>\n
  convicted him under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced<\/p>\n
  him to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Judgment of conviction & order of sentence is challenged<\/p>\n
  on  the  ground  that  without any chain  of  circumstances<\/p>\n
  sufficient  for  drawing inference that the  appellant  has<\/p>\n
  committed  the  murder of Shobha, the  Additional  Sessions<\/p>\n
  Judge, Khairagarh has convicted & sentenced the appellant in<\/p>\n
  the aforesaid manner and thereby committed illegality.<\/p>\n
3.   Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Shobha (since<\/p>\n
  deceased) was a person of criminal antecedents, his  father<\/p>\n
  Heera  Singh was not happy with him and finally, father  of<\/p>\n
  Shobha  contacted  appellant Narhar  &  another  co-accused<\/p>\n
  Babulal  for committing the murder of Shobha on payment  of<\/p>\n
  Rs.8,000\/-.  Appellant Narhar & another co-accused  Babulal<\/p>\n
  took  Shobha  from  his house and provided  liquor,  Shobha<\/p>\n
  consumed  liquor  in excess quantity and then  the  accused<\/p>\n
  inflicted  injury over the body of Shobha  and  caused  his<\/p>\n
  death.  The accused persons removed watch and skin of hands <\/p>\n
  having  tattoo marks and after defacing the body of Shobha,<\/p>\n
  they  thrown it near the road.  Beniram (PW-1),  Kotwar  of<\/p>\n
  Village  Gotia,  saw the dead body besides  the  road.   He<\/p>\n
  intimated the police vide Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-25 and on the<\/p>\n
  basis of Ex.P-25, F.I.R. was registered vide Ex.P-26 and merg<\/p>\n
  intimation was also registered vide Ex.P-24.  After summoning<\/p>\n
  the witnesses vide Ex.P-2, inquest over the unknown dead body<\/p>\n
  was prepared vide Ex.P-3.  The Patwari has prepared spot map<\/p>\n
  vide Ex.P-1.  Bloodstained soil & plain soil were recovered<\/p>\n
  vide Ex.P-4.  One stone was recovered vide Ex.P-6 from  the<\/p>\n
  spot.  Four pieces of Bidi and burnt match stick were  also<\/p>\n
  recovered  from the spot vide Ex.P-8.  One empty bottle  of<\/p>\n
  liquor was recovered vide Ex.P-9 from 100 steps away from the<\/p>\n
  place of incident.  Five pieces of glass were also recovered<\/p>\n
  vide Ex.P-10 from the spot.  Dead body was sent for autopsy<\/p>\n
  to the Assistant Surgeon, Khairagarh vide Ex.P-16 and autopsy<\/p>\n
  was conducted by Dr. L.C. Madharia (PW-15) vide Ex.P-16A who  <\/p>\n
  found following injuries: –\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  incised wound of 3 +” x +” x ,” over right parietal
\n       region;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) one stab wound of 3″ x +” x 1″ over forehead;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)     one stab wound of 2″ x +” x 1″ over upper part of
\nleft eye causing fracture of internal bone;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) five incised wounds near right ear & right cheek;\n<\/p>\n
(v)  one incised wound over lower rib;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) three incised wounds over chin; and\n<\/p>\n
(vii)     some abrasion, skin of both the hands were
\nscratched (removed).\n<\/p>\n
  On internal examination, brain was found ruptured.<\/p>\n
4.    One  piece of Desh Bandhu paper was also recovered from<\/p>\n
  the spot vide Ex.P-7.  During the course of investigation, co-<\/p>\n
  accused Babulal was taken into custody.  Co-accused Babulal <\/p>\n
  made  disclosure statement of rod vide Ex.P-18 and the same<\/p>\n
  was  recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-19.  One old cycle<\/p>\n
  and  its  parts were also seized from Babulal vide Ex.P-20.<\/p>\n
  Appellant Narhar was also taken into custody on 26-11-88, he<\/p>\n
  made disclosure statement of barber knife & watch vide Ex.P-<\/p>\n
  22  and  barber knife was recovered from the  spot  at  his<\/p>\n
  instance vide Ex.P-23.  One Camy wrist watch was recovered at<\/p>\n
  the instance of appellant Narhar from witness Krishna Kumar<\/p>\n
  vide Ex.P-12.  One letter was also seized from the wife  of<\/p>\n
  deceased  namely,  Rahmatulla  Bai  (PW-16)  vide  Ex.P-13.<\/p>\n
  Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161<\/p>\n
  of the Cr.P.C.  Seized articles were examined by the doctor<\/p>\n
  and  finally  sent  for  chemical  analysis  vide  Ex.P-29.<\/p>\n
  Presence  of blood over rod & barber knife seized from  co-<\/p>\n
  accused Babulal & appellant Narhar was confirmed vide Ex.P-<\/p>\n
  31.<\/p>\n
5.    After  completion of investigation,  charge  sheet  was<\/p>\n
  filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khairagarh<\/p>\n
  who  in  turn committed the case to the Court of  Sessions,<\/p>\n
  Rajnandgaon  from  where  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,<\/p>\n
  Khairagarh received the case on transfer for trial.<\/p>\n
6.    In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the<\/p>\n
  prosecution  has  examined as many as seventeen  witnesses. <\/p>\n
  Accused  persons  were examined under Section  313  of  the<\/p>\n
  Cr.P.C.  in  which they denied the circumstances  appearing<\/p>\n
  against them, pleaded innocence and false implication.<\/p>\n
7.    After  affording opportunity of hearing to the parties,<\/p>\n
  learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Babulal &<\/p>\n
  Heera  Singh,  and convicted & sentenced the  appellant  as<\/p>\n
  aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    We  have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused<\/p>\n
  the judgment and record of the trial Court.<\/p>\n
9.   Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
  the  case  of  the prosecution rests on the  circumstantial<\/p>\n
  evidence of last seen, recovery of articles belonging to the<\/p>\n
  deceased at the instance of the appellant and identification<\/p>\n
  of dead body by wife of the deceased Rahmatulla Bai (PW-16),<\/p>\n
  but  the prosecution has not adduced credible and clinching<\/p>\n
  evidence to connect the appellant with the crime in question.<\/p>\n
  The  evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution  is  not<\/p>\n
  sufficient for drawing inference that the dead body recovered<\/p>\n
  was   the   dead  body  of  the  deceased.    Evidence   of<\/p>\n
  identification of alleged article wrist watch is also of no<\/p>\n
  use.  Learned counsel further argued that conviction can be<\/p>\n
  based  upon  the circumstantial evidence, but  in  case  of<\/p>\n
  circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to prove<\/p>\n
  that the circumstances taken cumulatively are forming a chain<\/p>\n
  of  evidence so complete that there is no escape  from  the<\/p>\n
  conclusion  that  in all human probability  the  crime  was<\/p>\n
  committed  by  the  accused and none  else,  and  that  the<\/p>\n
  circumstances are sufficient to negate the innocence of the<\/p>\n
  accused and sufficient for drawing inference that only  the<\/p>\n
  accused  and  none else than the accused has committed  the <\/p>\n
  offence.  Learned counsel also argued that according to the<\/p>\n
  case of the prosecution, two persons were last seen together<\/p>\n
  with the deceased.  He placed reliance in the matter of Sheo<\/p>\n
  Kumar  v. State of C.G.1 in which it has been held by  this<\/p>\n
  Court  that  in case of evidence of last seen together  the<\/p>\n
  important and strong factor is an element of identification<\/p>\n
  and  in absence of identification of the fact that only the<\/p>\n
  appellant was seen with the deceased, no conviction could be<\/p>\n
  possible.  Learned counsel further placed reliance  in  the<\/p>\n
  matter of Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar2 in which the Apex<\/p>\n
  Court has held that the circumstances appearing against the<\/p>\n
  accused should be put to the accused under Section 313 of the<\/p>\n
  Cr.P.C.  for obtaining explanation and in absence  of  such<\/p>\n
  question,  the  accused is liable for  acquittal.   Learned<\/p>\n
  counsel  also  placed reliance in the  matter  of  Gamparai<\/p>\n
  Hrudayaraju v. State of A.P.3 in which the Apex  Court  has<\/p>\n
  held   in   case  of  circumstantial  evidence,   all   the<\/p>\n
incriminating   facts   and   circumstances   found   to   be<\/p>\n
  incompatible  with innocence of accused are sufficient  for<\/p>\n
  drawing inference of guilt of the accused.<\/p>\n
10.   On  the  other hand, learned State counsel opposed  the<\/p>\n
  appeal and submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of<\/p>\n
  the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the<\/p>\n
  accused\/appellant  is the person who has  caused  homicidal<\/p>\n
  death of deceased Shobha.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   In  order to appreciate the contentions of the parties,<\/p>\n
  we have examined the evidence available on record.  Case of<\/p>\n
  the prosecution rests on (a) the circumstantial evidence of<\/p>\n
  last seen together; (b) discloser statement of the appellant<\/p>\n
  relating  to  watch  & barber knife and its  recovery;  (c)<\/p>\n
  identification of wrist watch recovered at the instance  of<\/p>\n
  the  appellant  that it belongs to the  deceased;  and  (d)<\/p>\n
  identification of dead body by Rahmatulla Bai (PW-16), wife<\/p>\n
  of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
12.  As regards the question of homicidal death of deceased
\nShobha, the dead body was examined by Dr. L.C. Madharia (PW-\n<\/p>\n
15) who has deposed that on 9-9-88 he has conducted autopsy
\non the dead body of an unknown person vide Ex.P-16A and found
\nthe injuries as mentioned in para 3 of this judgment.  The
\ninjuries found over the dead body were sufficient to cause
\ndeath and the death was homicidal in nature.  Evidence of Dr.
\nL.C. Madharia (PW-15), autopsy report Ex.P-16A and inquest
\nEx.P-3 are sufficient for drawing inference that the cause of
\ndeath of the person found on 7th\/8th September, 1988 was as a
\nresult of fatal & ante-mortem injuries sufficient for causing
\ndeath.  At the time of autopsy, the dead body was not
\nidentified by any person.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Rahmatulla  Bai (PW-16), wife of deceased  Shobha,  has<\/p>\n
  deposed in her evidence that before the incident, appellant<\/p>\n
  Narhar & co-accused Babulal came to her house and took  her <\/p>\n
  husband Shobha with them, thereafter, Shobha did not return<\/p>\n
  back,  they  searched for Shobha and after some  time  they<\/p>\n
  received  one letter and she came to know that her  husband<\/p>\n
  died.  She went to Police Station Khairagarh where she  saw<\/p>\n
  the  photo of dead body of her husband.  In para 15 of  her<\/p>\n
  cross-examination, she has deposed that the police has shown<\/p>\n
  the photographs of the dead body, she was not in a position<\/p>\n
  to identify on the basis of photographs of face, but she has<\/p>\n
  identified on the basis of the photographs of hands & legs.<\/p>\n
  Tattoo marks were present on the hands of her husband,  but<\/p>\n
  the  same  were  missing in the photographs,  somebody  has<\/p>\n
  removed the tattoo marks by scratching the skin from  hands<\/p>\n
  and  she  has  identified the dead body  on  the  basis  of<\/p>\n
  photographs  of legs.  She has also deposed  that  she  had<\/p>\n
  compared the photographs of her husband taken from her house <\/p>\n
  with the photographs of the dead body and on the basis of the<\/p>\n
  photographs of legs, she had identified that the dead  body<\/p>\n
  whose photographs were shown to her was of her husband.  She <\/p>\n
  had  specifically deposed that if the photographs which she<\/p>\n
  was  having in her house were not available, then she would<\/p>\n
  not  be in a position to identify only on the basis of  the<\/p>\n
  photographs shown to her by the police.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.    Rahmatulla  Bai  (PW-16)  has  further  deposed   that<\/p>\n
  appellant Narhar & one Babulal, the acquitted accused, took<\/p>\n
  her husband.  She has deposed in para 12 of her evidence that<\/p>\n
  she  has not earlier seen the person who was with appellant<\/p>\n
  Narhar  and  she  has not told the police that  Jeevan  was<\/p>\n
  present with appellant Narhar.  She has also deposed in para<\/p>\n
  13 of her cross-examination that she is not in a position to<\/p>\n
  say whether accused Babulal was with Narhar or not.<\/p>\n
15.   In  the  present case, the prosecution has not  adduced<\/p>\n
  definite  evidence that as to when the deceased  went  with<\/p>\n
  appellant Narhar & another person and as to when the offence<\/p>\n
  took place.  According to the evidence of Rahmatulla Bai (PW-<\/p>\n
  16), appellant Narhar & one another person came to her house<\/p>\n
  and her husband went with those two persons.  In case of the<\/p>\n
  deceased  last  seen alive with more than two  persons,  in<\/p>\n
  absence of any cogent and clinching evidence it is difficult<\/p>\n
  to  hold  that  the deceased was last seen alive  with  the<\/p>\n
  accused, before his death.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   Disclosure statement of the appellant has been recorded<\/p>\n
  by  M.D. Tiwari (PW-14) vide Ex.P-22 relating to one  wrist<\/p>\n
  watch  and the wrist watch has been recovered from  Krishna<\/p>\n
  Kumar Verma vide Ex.P-12 at the instance of appellant Narhar.<\/p>\n
  The  seized Camy wrist watch was placed for identification.<\/p>\n
  G.P. Chaudhary (PW-10), Executive Magistrate\/Nayab Tahsildar, <\/p>\n
  has conducted the identification parade.  He has deposed in<\/p>\n
  his evidence that on 22-12-1988, Camy wrist watch was given<\/p>\n
  to  him by the police for identification, he mixed the Camy<\/p>\n
  wrist  watch with five other wrist watches and out  of  the<\/p>\n
  total six wrist watches, Camy wrist watch was identified by<\/p>\n
  Rahmatulla Bai (PW-16).  He has further deposed that  other<\/p>\n
  wrist  watches  were not of Camy make, they  were  of  HMT,<\/p>\n
  Allwyn, Hanri Sandeez.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   Rahmatulla  Bai  (PW-16), wife  of  the  deceased,  has<\/p>\n
  specifically deposed in her evidence that she has identified<\/p>\n
  the  watch of her husband Article `A’ in the identification<\/p>\n
  parade.   In  para  23  of her cross-examination,  she  has<\/p>\n
  specifically deposed that before identification of watch, the<\/p>\n
  police  has shown the watch to her, she saw the  watch  and<\/p>\n
  after some time she went for identification.  The watch which<\/p>\n
  she has identified was different from other watches put for<\/p>\n
  identification and on the basis of different size & shape of<\/p>\n
  watches, she had identified the watch.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.   Except  the  evidence of Rahmatulla Bai (PW-16),  other<\/p>\n
  witnesses  have not supported the case of the  prosecution.<\/p>\n
  The  evidence  of Rahmatulla Bai (PW-16), wife  of  Shobha,<\/p>\n
  reveals that her husband went with appellant Narhar & another<\/p>\n
  person.  She had identified the photographs of dead body on<\/p>\n
  the basis of photographs of her husband which she was having,<\/p>\n
  especially on the basis of photographs of leg part  of  the<\/p>\n
  dead  body  and photographs of her husband.  She  has  also<\/p>\n
  identified the Camy wrist watch which the police has  shown<\/p>\n
  prior to the identification parade and on the basis of such<\/p>\n
  opportunity, she has identified the wrist watch on the basis<\/p>\n
  of different size & shape of that watch.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.   Conviction can be based on the circumstantial evidence,<\/p>\n
  but  as  held in the case of Gamparai (supra), in  case  of<\/p>\n
  circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be drawn if<\/p>\n
  all  the incriminating facts and circumstances found to  be<\/p>\n
  incompatible with innocence of accused.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   While dealing with the same question, the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
  the matter of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of<\/p>\n
  Madhya Pradesh4<\/a> has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
          “It  is well to remember that in cases  where
\n          the  evidence is of a circumstantial  nature,
\n          the  circumstances from which the  conclusion
\n          of  guilt  is to be drawn should  be  in  the
\n          first  instance be fully established and  all
\n          the facts so established should be consistent
\n          only with the hypothesis of the guilt of  the
\n          accused.  Again, the circumstances should  be
\n          of  a conclusive nature and tendency and they
\n          should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
\n          but  the one proposed to be proved.  In other
\n          words,  there must be a chain of evidence  so
\n          far  complete as not to leave any  reasonable
\n          ground  for a conclusion consistent with  the
\n          innocence of the accused and it must be  such
\n          as  to show that within all human probability
\n          the act must have been done by the accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.  In the matter of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and<\/p>\n
  Ors.5  it was laid down by the Apex Court that when a  case<\/p>\n
  rests  upon  circumstantial evidence,  such  evidence  must<\/p>\n
  satisfy the following tests:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
\n       sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
\n(2)  those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
\nunerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
\n(3)  the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a
\nchain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion
\nthat within all human probability the crime was committed by
\nthe accused and none else; and
\n(4)  the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
\nconviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of
\nany other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
\nand such evidence should not only be consistent with the
\nguilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
\ninnocence.\n<\/p>\n
22.    In   case   of   circumstantial  evidence   chain   of<\/p>\n
  circumstances  should  be  so  connected  with  each  other<\/p>\n
  sufficient  for  proving  the fact  that  the  accused  has<\/p>\n
  committed  the  guilt and except the  accused  no  one  has<\/p>\n
  committed the offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.   In the present case, if the evidence of Rahmatulla  Bai<\/p>\n
  (PW-16) is relied upon, it may be inferred that her husband<\/p>\n
  went with the appellant & one another person, but it is not<\/p>\n
  possible to infer that her husband was last seen alive with<\/p>\n
  appellant  Narhar or with other person.  She has identified<\/p>\n
  the  photographs  of  the dead body on  the  basis  of  the<\/p>\n
  photographs of leg after comparing the photographs  of  leg<\/p>\n
  with the photographs which she was having.  On the basis of<\/p>\n
  identification  of  wrist watch and on  the  basis  of  the<\/p>\n
  photographs that too photographs of leg, it is difficult to<\/p>\n
  hold  that  the photographs of the dead person was  of  the<\/p>\n
  husband of Rahmatulla Bai (PW-16) namely, Shobha.  She  has  <\/p>\n
  identified the wrist watch which has already been shown  to<\/p>\n
  her by police and which was of different size & shape and on<\/p>\n
  the basis of different size & shape, she could identify the<\/p>\n
  wrist watch which was shown to her by the Police just before<\/p>\n
  the  test identification parade.  These statements are  not<\/p>\n
  admissible in evidence and even if same are relied upon  as<\/p>\n
  gospel truth, they are not sufficient for completion of the<\/p>\n
  chain  of  circumstances  to  exclude  the  possibility  of<\/p>\n
  innocence  of  the accused and to prove the  guilt  of  the<\/p>\n
  accused  that  except the accused nobody has committed  the <\/p>\n
  offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24.   The  present case is a case of no evidence against  the<\/p>\n
  appellant.   The trial Court has convicted & sentenced  the<\/p>\n
  appellant on the basis of the aforesaid evidence which is not<\/p>\n
  legal evidence.  In absence of any legal evidence against the<\/p>\n
  appellant,  conviction & sentence of the appellant  is  not<\/p>\n
  sustainable under the law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25.   For  the  foregoing  reasons, the  appeal  is  allowed.<\/p>\n
  Conviction & sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of<\/p>\n
  the  I.P.C. are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the<\/p>\n
  said charge.  The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith<\/p>\n
  unless required to be in custody in connection with any other<\/p>\n
  case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  JUDGE                                JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.860 of 1989 Narhar son of Nankuram Lodhi …Petitioners Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG) …Respondents {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (ii) of the Code of Criminal […]<\/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-213418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 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\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-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=\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-17T14:53:04+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-17T14:53:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3001,\"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\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-17T14:53:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 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":"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 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\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-17T14:53:04+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-17T14:53:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009"},"wordCount":3001,"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\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009","name":"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-17T14:53:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narhar-son-of-nankuram-lodhi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-cg-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narhar Son Of Nankuram Lodhi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Cg) on 3 December, 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\/213418","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=213418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}