{"id":213596,"date":"2009-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-10T19:18:07","modified_gmt":"2015-12-10T13:48:07","slug":"laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: D A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                     REPORTABLE\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75                 OF 2009\n               (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.6403 of 2006)\n\n\n\nLaxminath                                             ....Appellant\n\n\n                                 Versus\n\nState of Chhattisgarh                                  ....Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
the Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for<\/p>\n
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324of the Indian Penal
\nCode, 1860 (in short the `IPC’). The accused persons were sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo imprisonment for life and for two years respectively for the said<\/p>\n
offences.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:<\/p>\n
      Mahgin Bai (PW-1) lodged the F.I.R (Ex. P-1) in the Police Station<\/p>\n
Bhairamgarh on 4.2.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. to the effect that on 3.2.1993<\/p>\n
she was thrashing paddy in the house. At that time her mother-in-law<\/p>\n
Gangadei (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased’) was preparing page.<\/p>\n
Accused Laxminath who is husband of her sister-in-law, came and<\/p>\n
demanded page. Her mother-in-law gave page to the accused. He thereafter<\/p>\n
demanded tobacco, on which her mother-in-law gave him tobacco also and<\/p>\n
accused left the house. Thereafter, the accused came with bow & arrow and<\/p>\n
shot the arrow on her, which hit on her left upper arm and blood started<\/p>\n
oozing out of it. Accused also shot an arrow on her mother-in-law, which hit<\/p>\n
on chest, blood started oozing out of the injury and accused ran away. Her<\/p>\n
uncle-in-law Dhaniram (PW2) witnessed the incident, brought the villagers<\/p>\n
and by that time, her mother-in-law was alive. Arrow was stuck in the chest<\/p>\n
of her mother-in-law. Villagers took her mother-in-law to Police Station<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span>
\nBhairamgarh from where they took her to Jagdalpur Hospital, but on the<\/p>\n
way near Mawlibhata Gangadei she succumbed to the injury. Receiving this<\/p>\n
report, the police registered the FIR (Ex. P-1). The Investigating Officer left<\/p>\n
for the scene of occurrence and took into possession the bow under Ex.P-2.<\/p>\n
The Investigating Officer gave a written request Ex. P-3 to the Assistant<\/p>\n
Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Bhairamgarh for examination of the<\/p>\n
injuries of Mahgin Bai, on which doctor examined and prepared the injury<\/p>\n
report and mentioned that there was one incised wound over left upper arm.<\/p>\n
Arrow, weapon of offence was taken into possession under Ex.P-4 and the<\/p>\n
petticoat of deceased Gangadei was taken into possession under Ex.P-5.<\/p>\n
Blood stained soil and plain soil was taken into possession under Ex.P-6<\/p>\n
from the place of occurrence. Arrow in question was examined by the<\/p>\n
doctor on the request of Station House Officer Ex.P-7 and doctor opined<\/p>\n
that the injury on the body of Mahgin Bai could be caused by the said<\/p>\n
arrow. Panchnama (Ex.P-10) of the body of Gangadei was prepared after<\/p>\n
giving notice Ex.P-9 to the Panchas. Postmortem on the body of deceased<\/p>\n
Gangadei was conducted by Dr. S.K. Naik and he prepared the post mortem<\/p>\n
report. There was a dying declaration before PW-6.\n<\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span>
\n      After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who in turn committed the case to learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Jagdalpur from where learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Jagdalpur received the case on transfer for trial. As accused pleaded<\/p>\n
innocence, trial was held. Learned trial Judge recorded conviction as noted<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Before the High Court the basic stand was that the evidence was not<\/p>\n
sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused. The oral dying declaration was not<\/p>\n
believable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      It was also submitted that only one arrow was shot from a distance<\/p>\n
and, therefore, Section 302 IPC has no application. The High Court did not<\/p>\n
accept the plea and upheld the conviction and the sentence.<\/p>\n
4.    The stand before the High Court was reiterated before this Court.<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.<\/p>\n
6.    The basic question is whether Section 302 IPC has application.<\/p>\n
7.    In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and `murder’ its<\/p>\n
specie. All `murder’ is `culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking<\/p>\n
generally, `culpable homicide’ sans ‘special characteristics of murder is<\/p>\n
culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. For the purpose of fixing<\/p>\n
punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC<\/p>\n
practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what<\/p>\n
may be called, `culpable homicide of the first degree’. This is the gravest<\/p>\n
form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as `murder’.<\/p>\n
The second may be termed as `culpable homicide of the second degree’.<\/p>\n
This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is<\/p>\n
`culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is the lowest type of culpable<\/p>\n
homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the<\/p>\n
punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree<\/p>\n
is punishable under the second part of Section 304.\n<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
8.     The academic distinction between `murder’ and `culpable homicide<\/p>\n
not amounting to murder’ has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is<\/p>\n
caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms<\/p>\n
used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into<\/p>\n
minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and<\/p>\n
application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords<\/p>\n
used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following<\/p>\n
comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction<\/p>\n
between the two offences.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Section 299                                          Section 300\n\n\n\nA person commits culpable homicide                          Subject to certain exceptions\nif the act by which the death is caused is done-    culpable homicide is murder\n                                                    if the act by which the\n                                                    death is caused is done -\n\n\n                                            INTENTION\n\n\n        (a) with the intention of causing          (1) with the intention of\n           death; or                               causing death; or\n\n\n        (b) with the intention of causing          (2) with the intention of\n          such bodily injury as is likely          causing such bodily injury\n          to cause death; or                            as the offender knows to be\n                                                          likely to cause the death of\n\n\n\n                                             6<\/span>\n                                                            the person to whom the harm\n                                                            is caused;\n                                                             or\n\n\n                                                            (3) With the intention of\n                                                            causing bodily injury to any\n                                                            person and the bodily injury\n                                                            intended to be inflicted\n                                                                   is sufficient in the\n                                                                            ordinary course   of\n           nature\n                                                            to cause death; or\n\n\n                                      KNOWLEDGE\n                                                ****\n\n\n      (c) with the knowledge that the act       (4) with the knowledge that\n          is likely to cause death.                       the act is so imminently\n                                                            dangerous that it must in all\n                                                            probability cause death or\n                                                            such bodily injury as is\n                                                            likely to cause death, and\n                                                            without any excuse for\n                                                            incurring the risk of causing\n                                                            death or such injury as is\n                                                            mentioned above.\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
9.   Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of<\/p>\n
Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under<\/p>\n
clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the<\/p>\n
                                            7<\/span>
\nparticular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the<\/p>\n
internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact<\/p>\n
that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to<\/p>\n
cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that<\/p>\n
the `intention to cause death’ is not an essential requirement of clause (2).<\/p>\n
Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender’s<\/p>\n
knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the<\/p>\n
particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this<\/p>\n
clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to<\/p>\n
Section 300.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on<\/p>\n
the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow<\/p>\n
intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged<\/p>\n
liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause<\/p>\n
death of that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or<\/p>\n
spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no<\/p>\n
such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an<\/p>\n
intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of<\/p>\n
                                     8<\/span>
\nnature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury<\/p>\n
which caused the death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section<\/p>\n
300, instead of the words `likely to cause death’ occurring in the<\/p>\n
corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words “sufficient in the<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature” have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies<\/p>\n
between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient<\/p>\n
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but<\/p>\n
real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference<\/p>\n
between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of<\/p>\n
the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury.<\/p>\n
To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which<\/p>\n
determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the<\/p>\n
lowest degree. The word `likely’ in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the<\/p>\n
sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words<\/p>\n
“bodily injury…….sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”<\/p>\n
means that death will be the “most probable” result of the injury, having<\/p>\n
regard to the ordinary course of nature.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender<\/p>\n
intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional<\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span>
\nbodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of<\/p>\n
nature. Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1966 SC 1874) is an apt<\/p>\n
illustration of this point.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 465), Vivian Bose,<\/p>\n
J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning and scope of clause (3). It<\/p>\n
was observed that the prosecution must prove the following facts before it<\/p>\n
can bring a case under Section 300, “thirdly”. First, it must establish quite<\/p>\n
objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the injury<\/p>\n
must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must<\/p>\n
be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is<\/p>\n
to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of<\/p>\n
injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the<\/p>\n
enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be proved that the injury of<\/p>\n
the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was<\/p>\n
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the<\/p>\n
enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the<\/p>\n
intention of the offender.\n<\/p>\n
                                     10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13.   The ingredients of clause “Thirdly” of Section 300, IPC were brought<\/p>\n
out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language as follows:<\/p>\n
      “To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following
\n      facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, “thirdly”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is
\n      present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are
\n      purely objective investigations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict
\n      that particular bodily injury, that is to say that it was not
\n      accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury
\n      was intended.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry
\n      proceeds further and,<\/p>\n
      Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just
\n      described made up of the three elements set out above is
\n      sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This
\n      part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has
\n      nothing to do with the intention of the offender.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.   The learned Judge explained the third ingredient in the following<\/p>\n
words (at page 468):\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “The question is not whether the prisoner intended to
\n             inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he<\/p>\n
                                     11<\/span>
\n             intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present.\n<\/p>\n
             If he can show that he did not, or if the totality of the
\n             circumstances justify such an inference, then of course,
\n             the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if
\n             there is nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the
\n             appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference is that
\n             he intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of its
\n             seriousness or intended serious consequences, is neither
\n             here or there. The question, so far as the intention is
\n             concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict
\n             an injury of a particular degree of seriousness but
\n             whether he intended to inflict the injury in question and
\n             once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to
\n             cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the
\n             circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.”\n<\/p>\n
15.   These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus classicus.<\/p>\n
The test laid down by Virsa Singh’s case (supra) for the applicability of<\/p>\n
clause “Thirdly” is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part<\/p>\n
of the rule of law. Under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, culpable<\/p>\n
homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a)<\/p>\n
that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death<\/p>\n
or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the<\/p>\n
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature<\/p>\n
to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that<\/p>\n
particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was<\/p>\n
sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present was the<\/p>\n
injury that was intended to be inflicted.\n<\/p>\n
                                      12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
16.   Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh’s case, even if<\/p>\n
the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury<\/p>\n
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend<\/p>\n
to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration<\/p>\n
(c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.<\/p>\n
17.   Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require<\/p>\n
knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for<\/p>\n
the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these<\/p>\n
corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section<\/p>\n
300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the<\/p>\n
probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from<\/p>\n
a particular person or persons – being caused from his imminently<\/p>\n
dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on<\/p>\n
the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act<\/p>\n
having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the<\/p>\n
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
18.   The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In<\/p>\n
most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the Court. But<\/p>\n
                                     13<\/span>
\nsometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so<\/p>\n
telescoped into each other that it may not be convenient to give a separate<\/p>\n
treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.<\/p>\n
19.   The position was illuminatingly highlighted by this Court in State of<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr.<\/a> (1976 (4) SCC 382),<\/p>\n
Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT<\/a><\/p>\n
2002 (6) SC 274), and Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka<\/a> (2003 (10)<\/p>\n
SCC 472) and Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> (2005 (9) SCC 650).<\/p>\n
20.   Considering the factual scenario and the facts that one arrow was shot<\/p>\n
      the offence is covered by Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302<\/p>\n
      IPC. Though it cannot be laid down that whenever one arrow is shot<\/p>\n
      Section 302 IPC will not apply, on the facts of the present case it<\/p>\n
      appears to be so. Therefore, conviction is altered from Section 302<\/p>\n
      IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Custodial sentence of eight years<\/p>\n
      would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.   Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
                                     14<\/span>
\n                                                          ………\n<\/p>\n
………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                                  ………………………………………..J.
\n                                                  (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nJanuary 13, 2009<\/p>\n
                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009 Author: D A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.6403 of 2006) Laxminath ….Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh ….Respondent JUDGMENT DR. […]<\/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-213596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLaxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 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\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-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=\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-10T13:48:07+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-10T13:48:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2505,\"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\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-10T13:48:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 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":"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 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\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-10T13:48:07+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-10T13:48:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009"},"wordCount":2505,"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\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009","name":"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-10T13:48:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminath-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxminath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 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\/213596","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=213596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}