{"id":216132,"date":"2008-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-27T01:18:36","modified_gmt":"2017-04-26T19:48:36","slug":"appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/142219\/1986\t 5\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1422 of 1986\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n==========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n==========================================\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBALABHAI\nNARSINHBHAI \n\n \n\n==========================================Appearance\n: \nMR MG NANAVATI,\nADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant \nMR RS\nPANJWANI for the Opponent \n==========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>\tState<br \/>\nof Gujarat has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 16.09.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nBaroda in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1986 acquitting the respondent<br \/>\naccused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe<br \/>\nhave heard Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nand with his assistance have gone through the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nTrial Court accepted the plea of self-defence set up by the accused<br \/>\nand acquitted him.  A perusal of the cross-examination of Vechlabhai<br \/>\nDaman (PW-9) and Bhanka Shankar (PW-10), who witnessed the incident,<br \/>\nclearly shows that the accused had put forth the following pleas of<br \/>\nself-defence: that deceased Kalu Shankar had come to his house with<br \/>\nan axe, that there was an altercation between him and the deceased,<br \/>\nthat deceased Kalu Shankar had abused him and threatened to kill him<br \/>\nin case he did not repay the amount of Rs. 600, that the deceased<br \/>\nthen chased him inside his house slashing the axe towards him and<br \/>\nthat when he was pushed to the wall and had no possibility of<br \/>\nescaping he picked up the gun hanging on the wall and asked deceased<br \/>\nto stop, that the deceased did not stop and as he was about to hit<br \/>\nhim with the axe that he fired from his gun.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis now well settled that the onus is on the accused to establish that<br \/>\nhis action was in exercise of the right of private defence. The plea<br \/>\ncan be established either by letting in defence evidence or from the<br \/>\nprosecution evidence itself, but cannot be based on speculation or<br \/>\nmere surmises. The accused need not take the plea explicitly. He can<br \/>\nsucceed in his plea if he is able<br \/>\nto bring out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or other<br \/>\nevidence that the apparent criminal act was committed by him in<br \/>\nexercise of his right of private defence. He should make out<br \/>\ncircumstances that would have reasonably caused an apprehension in<br \/>\nhis mind that he would suffer death or grievous hurt if he does not<br \/>\nexercise his right of private defence. There is a clear distinction<br \/>\nbetween the nature of burden that is cast on an accused under Section<br \/>\n105 of the Evidence Act (read with Sections 96 to 106 of the Penal<br \/>\nCode) to establish a plea of private defence and the burden that is<br \/>\ncast on the prosecution under Section 101 of the Evidence Act to<br \/>\nprove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that<br \/>\nwhich lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to<br \/>\nprove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge<br \/>\nhis onus by establishing a preponderance of probability (vide <a href=\"\/doc\/238379\/\">Partap<br \/>\nv. State of U.P<\/a> (1976) 2 SCC 798, <a href=\"\/doc\/1344060\/\">Salim Zia v. State<br \/>\nof U.P.<\/a>(1979) 2 SCC 648 and <a href=\"\/doc\/153251\/\">Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State<br \/>\nof Punjab<\/a> (1979) 3 SCC 30.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\nSekar v. State (2002) 8 SCC 354 this Court observed:<br \/>\n(SCC p.355) <\/p>\n<p>?SA plea of right of<br \/>\nprivate defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While<br \/>\nconsidering whether the right of private defence is available to an<br \/>\naccused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict<br \/>\nsevere and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether<br \/>\nright of private defence is available or not, the injuries received<br \/>\nby the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries<br \/>\ncaused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had<br \/>\ntime to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors<br \/>\nto be considered. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a<br \/>\nperson acted in the exercise of the right of private defence, is a<br \/>\nquestion of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\neach case. No test in the abstract for determining such a question<br \/>\ncan be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the court<br \/>\nmust consider all the surrounding circumstances. It is not<br \/>\nnecessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in<br \/>\nself-defence. If the circumstances show that the right of private<br \/>\ndefence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the court to<br \/>\nconsider such a plea. In a given case, the court can consider it even<br \/>\nif the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be<br \/>\nconsidered from the material on record.?? \t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nabove legal position was reiterated in Rizan v. State of<br \/>\nChhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661. After an exhaustive reference to<br \/>\nseveral decisions of this Court, this Court summarised the nature of<br \/>\nplea of private defence required to be put forth and the degree of<br \/>\nproof in support of it, thus: (SCC pp.\u00a0\t670-71, para 13)<\/p>\n<p>?SUnder Section 105 of<br \/>\nthe Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the accused, who<br \/>\nsets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is<br \/>\nnot possible for the court to presume the truth of the plea of<br \/>\nself-defence. The court shall presume the absence of such<br \/>\ncircumstances. It is for the accused to place necessary material on<br \/>\nrecord either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting<br \/>\nnecessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution. An<br \/>\naccused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not<br \/>\nrequired to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to<br \/>\ncircumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself.<br \/>\nThe question in such a case would be a question of assessing the true<br \/>\neffect of the prosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused<br \/>\ndischarging any burden. When the right of private defence is pleaded,<br \/>\nthe defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the<br \/>\ncourt that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either<br \/>\nwarding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable<br \/>\napprehension from the side of the accused. The burden of establishing<br \/>\nthe plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands<br \/>\ndischarged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of<br \/>\nthat plea on the basis of the material on record. ?\n<\/p>\n<p>The accused need not<br \/>\nprove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable<br \/>\ndoubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the<br \/>\npreponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea.??<br \/>\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tWe<br \/>\nhave examined the evidence, keeping in view, the said principles.<br \/>\nVechla Daman (PW-9) and Bhanka Shankar (PW-10) are independent<br \/>\nwitnesses who were present at the time when the accused allegedly<br \/>\nshot the deceased and are stated to have witnessed the incident.<br \/>\nVachla Daman (PW-9), in his examination-in-chief has stated that<br \/>\nwhile he alongwith Bhanka Shankar and Narsing were at the house of<br \/>\naccused, deceased Kalu Shankar had come there demanding money from<br \/>\nthe accused.  An altercation had taken place between the accused and<br \/>\nthe deceased and they had separated the two from quarreling further.<br \/>\nThereafter, the accused had fired two shots at the deceased.  In his<br \/>\ncross-examination he has stated that after they separated the accused<br \/>\nand the deceased from quarreling, the deceased again hurled abuses at<br \/>\nthe accused and ran after him slashing the axe with an intention to<br \/>\nkill the accused.  The accused ran into his house and when he was<br \/>\npushed to the wall and could not escape, he picked up the gun hanging<br \/>\non the wall and pointing it towards the deceased asked him to stop<br \/>\nthere.  The deceased did not stop and instead lifted the axe to hit<br \/>\nthe accused.  At that point of time, the accused fired at the<br \/>\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSimilarly,<br \/>\nBhanka Shankar (PW-10) has stated that the deceased had come to the<br \/>\nhouse of the accused demanding money, that he was armed with an axe,<br \/>\nthat there was exchange of words between the deceased and accused,<br \/>\nthat the deceased threatened to kill the accused and chased him<br \/>\nwaving the axe and when the deceased was about to give a blow to the<br \/>\naccused, the accused picked up the gun and fired at the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nabove evidence clearly and completely corroborates and supports the<br \/>\ncase of self-defence put forth by the accused.  What is significant<br \/>\nis that both these witnesses were not subjected to any re-examination<br \/>\non this aspect nor were they sought to be declared hostile. In fact,<br \/>\nthe manner in which both of them have given evidence in the<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief and in the cross-examination shows that they<br \/>\nwere not partisan witness and were giving evidence in a natural<br \/>\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nTrial Court has rightly appreciated the said evidence of  these<br \/>\nwitnesses and accepted the plea of self-defence put forth by the<br \/>\naccused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAn<br \/>\nattempt was made on behalf of the prosecution that the trial court<br \/>\nought to have the rejected the plea of self-defence on the ground<br \/>\nthat the accused did not state in his statement under Section 313<br \/>\nCrPC that he had fired at Kalu Shankar in self-defence. Obviously, an<br \/>\naccused cannot be expected to admit that he had inflicted the blow<br \/>\nthat killed the deceased. Where the plea of the accused, when read<br \/>\nwith the evidence of the eyewitnesses, brings out a set of facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances showing that the accused acted in exercise of the right<br \/>\nof private defence, the fact that the accused in his Section 313 CrPC<br \/>\nstatement did not admit that he hit back the deceased, is not a<br \/>\nground to reject the plea of private defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, we find that the Trial Court has rightly<br \/>\nacquitted the accused.   The reasons given by the Trial Judge are<br \/>\ncorrect and based on proper appreciation of evidence.  The same does<br \/>\nnot call for any interference.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.<br \/>\nBail bond stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>(BHAGWATI<br \/>\nPRASAD, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>omkar<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court ==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/142219\/1986 5\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1422 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of [&hellip;]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-26T19:48:36+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T19:48:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1636,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\",\"name\":\"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T19:48:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-26T19:48:36+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T19:48:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008"},"wordCount":1636,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008","name":"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T19:48:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-state-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"==========================================Appearance vs State on 11 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/216132","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=216132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}