{"id":216283,"date":"2010-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-19T20:07:29","modified_gmt":"2015-05-19T14:37:29","slug":"shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n            Criminal  Appeal   259 OF 2004\n\n                    Shrichand\n                          ...Petitioners\n\n                           Versus\n\n                 State  of Chhattisgarh\n                              ...Respondents\n\n\n!                 Shri V P  Gupta\n\n^                Shri  Arun   Sao\n\n CORAM:         HONBLE MR T P SHARMA ,HONBLE   MR R L JHANWAR JJ            \n\n  Dated:   16\/09\/2010\n\n:  JUDGEMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2  CR P C         <\/p>\n
            The   following  judgment of  the  Court  was<\/p>\n
 passed by T.P. Sharma, J:-\n<\/p>\n
  1.   Challenge  in  this appeal is to the  judgment  of<\/p>\n
       conviction and order of sentence dated 7\/1\/2004 passed by<\/p>\n
       First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar C.G.  in<\/p>\n
       Sessions Trial No. 286\/2003 whereby and where under after<\/p>\n
       holding the appellant guilty for the commission of<\/p>\n
       offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his<\/p>\n
       son Chaitram convicted the appellant under Section 302 of<\/p>\n
       the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
       and fine of Rs. 1000\/- in default of payment of fine<\/p>\n
       amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.<\/p>\n
  2.   Conviction is impugned on the ground that  without<\/p>\n
       any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of the<\/p>\n
       appellant, Court below has convicted and sentenced the<\/p>\n
       appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an<\/p>\n
       illegality.\n<\/p>\n
  3.   As per case of the prosecution, on faithful night of<\/p>\n
       14\/6\/2003 at about 12.30 (0.30) appellant along with his<\/p>\n
       son Chaitram and another child were present in his house<\/p>\n
       at village Kusumi. Present appellant assaulted his son<\/p>\n
       Chaitram and caused repeated injuries over his body and<\/p>\n
       caused instantaneously death of Chaitram. Appellant<\/p>\n
       bolted the room from out side the house where other<\/p>\n
       children  were also present. Appellant went to the Police<\/p>\n
       Station Palari with blood stained axe, his body and<\/p>\n
       cloths were stained with blood. Police Officers  have<\/p>\n
       directed one Police Officer to find out the truth who<\/p>\n
       went to the village thereafter some villagers went to the<\/p>\n
       house of appellant and saw the dead body of Chaitram<\/p>\n
       inside the room. They went to Police Station where<\/p>\n
       appellant was present they called the appellant and<\/p>\n
       inquired then he made extrajudicial confession that he<\/p>\n
       has committed the murder of his son Chaitram same was<\/p>\n
       recorded vide Ex. P-9 thereafter PW3 Madandas lodged<\/p>\n
       First Information Report vide Ex. P-5. Marg was recorded<\/p>\n
       vide Ex. P-6. Investigating Officer left for scene of<\/p>\n
       occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-<\/p>\n
       13, inquest over the dead body of deceased Chaitram was<\/p>\n
       prepared vide Ex. P-14. Blood stained axe and blood<\/p>\n
       stained towel were seized from the appellant vide Ex. P-<\/p>\n
       15. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health<\/p>\n
       Center  Palari vide Ex. P-2A. PW2 Dr. F.R.  Nirala<\/p>\n
       conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-2 and found following<\/p>\n
       injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
            (i) One incised wound of 4 + ” x  3 +”
\n            over  neck  on  the ground  of  repeated
\n            injury.   Injury   was   appearing    as
\n            lacerated  wound. Tracia   and  internal
\n            part of neck was found cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x 1 + `’
\n            over left cheek. Jaw was also found cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iii) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x 1 +”
\n            over chin. Bone was also found cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iv)  Incised wound of 2 x 1” x  1  +”
\n            over left ear. Jaw was also found cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (v)  Incised wound of  2” x 1” x 1 +”
\n            over back of the neck.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (vi) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x 1  +”
\n            over  left  wrist. Ulna  bone  was  also
\n            found fracture.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (vii) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x 1 +”
\n            over  right palm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (viii) Incised wound of 1 +” x + c.m. x
\n            + c.m. near left eye.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ix)  One incised wound of 1” x  +”  x
\n            +” over forehead.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Mode of death was shock and death
\n            was homicidal in nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  4.   Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-1. Appellant  was<\/p>\n
       sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-3A who was<\/p>\n
       examined by  PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala vide Ex. P-3 and blood<\/p>\n
       was found over the body of appellant, blood  was taken<\/p>\n
       out with the help of cotton and was sealed. Axe was also<\/p>\n
       examined by doctor vide Ex. P-4 same was stained with<\/p>\n
       blood. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from<\/p>\n
       the spot vide Ex. P-7. Blood stained shirt, bed-sheet and<\/p>\n
       other cloths of deceased and cotton stained with blood<\/p>\n
       found over the body of appellant were sealed vide Ex. P-<\/p>\n
       16. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination<\/p>\n
       Vide Ex. P-18. Presence of blood was confirmed vide Ex. P-<\/p>\n
       22 on axe, towel and cotton by the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
       Laboratory Raipur.\n<\/p>\n
  5.   Statements  of  the witnesses were recorded  under<\/p>\n
       Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in<\/p>\n
       short `the Code’). After completion of the investigation<\/p>\n
       charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate<\/p>\n
       First Class, Baloda Bazar who in turn committed the case<\/p>\n
       to the Court of Sessions, Raipur from where Learned First<\/p>\n
       Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar  received the<\/p>\n
       case on transfer for trial.\n<\/p>\n
  6.   In order to prove the guilt of the appellant\/accused<\/p>\n
       prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Accused was  <\/p>\n
       examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied<\/p>\n
       the circumstances appearing against him, innocency and<\/p>\n
       false implication is claimed. He has taken specific<\/p>\n
       defence that in the intervening night of 13-14\/6\/2007 his<\/p>\n
       son Chaitram was killed by some person, he went to police<\/p>\n
       station for lodging report but he was detained by police<\/p>\n
       and was falsely implicated.\n<\/p>\n
  7.     After affording an opportunity of hearing to the<\/p>\n
       parties learned First  Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda<\/p>\n
       Bazar   convicted and sentenced the  appellant  as<\/p>\n
       aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Learned counsel for the appellant V.P. Gupta and
\nlearned G.A.  for the State\/respondent Arun Sao are
\nheard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below
\nperused.\n<\/p>\n
  9.   Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued<\/p>\n
       that conviction of the appellant is substantially based<\/p>\n
       on the evidence of persons before whom present appellant<\/p>\n
       made extrajudicial confession vide Ex. P-9 but as per<\/p>\n
       evidence of PW10 Investigating Officer  C.D. Lahre  he<\/p>\n
       was present at the time of recording such extrajudicial<\/p>\n
       confession Ex. P-9 and same was recorded in the police<\/p>\n
       station premises therefore, same is hit by under Sections<\/p>\n
       25 & 26 of the Evidence Act except aforesaid evidence<\/p>\n
       prosecution has not collected any evidence against the<\/p>\n
       appellant therefore conviction and sentence of the<\/p>\n
       appellant is not sustainable under the law.<\/p>\n
  10.  On  the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the<\/p>\n
       State\/respondent opposed the appeal and submits that in<\/p>\n
       the present case as per evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
       accused himself had gone to police station for lodging<\/p>\n
       report. He was having blood stained axe and  injured dead<\/p>\n
       body  of his son Chaitram was found in his  house.<\/p>\n
       Witnesses has interrogated him although in Police Station<\/p>\n
       premises  but  for away from the Police  Officers.<\/p>\n
       Extrajudicial confession made to police is not admissible<\/p>\n
       in evidence and is hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the<\/p>\n
       Evidence Act but extrajudicial confession made in the<\/p>\n
       police station premises or any premises of police station<\/p>\n
       is not hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
  11.  In  the  present  case appellant  was  immediately<\/p>\n
       examined by doctor. His body was stained with blood and<\/p>\n
       same was taken out with the help of cotton. His towel was<\/p>\n
       also seized, same was examined by Forensic Science<\/p>\n
       Laboratory and presence of blood over the body  of<\/p>\n
       appellant and towel which appellant was bearing was<\/p>\n
       confirmed Ex. P-20. Present appellant has not offered any<\/p>\n
       explanation to show that how his body was stained with<\/p>\n
       blood.  This alone circumstance is sufficient  for<\/p>\n
       connecting the appellant with crime in question and for<\/p>\n
       drawing an inference that appellant is a person who<\/p>\n
       culpable homicide amounting to murder of  his  son<\/p>\n
       Chaitram.\n<\/p>\n
  12.  In  order  to appreciate the argument advanced  on<\/p>\n
       behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence<\/p>\n
       adduced on behalf of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
  13.  In the present case, homicidal death as a result of<\/p>\n
       multiple fatal injuries  found over the body of Chaitram<\/p>\n
       has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
       appellant on the other hand, otherwise also established<\/p>\n
       by the evidence of PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala and autopsy report<\/p>\n
       Ex. P-2  which reveals that as many as 9 injures found<\/p>\n
       over the body of deceased  including fatal injures over<\/p>\n
       neck and scalp  and death was homicidal in nature.<\/p>\n
  14.  As  regard the complicity of appellant in crime in<\/p>\n
       question, conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n
       As per the settled law in order to convict an accused<\/p>\n
       based on the circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
       the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of W.B.1 has<\/p>\n
       held that :-\n<\/p>\n
             “In  a  case  based on  circumstantial
\n           evidence,  the circumstances from  which
\n           the  conclusion of guilt is to be  drawn
\n           have  not  only to be fully  established
\n           but  also that all the circumstances  so
\n           established  should be of  a  conclusive
\n           nature  and  consistent  only  with  the
\n           hypothesis of the guilt of the  accused.
\n           Those   circumstances  should   not   be
\n           capable of being explained by any  other
\n           hypothesis  except  the  guilt  of   the
\n           accused  and  the chain of the  evidence
\n           must be so complete as not to leave  any
\n           reasonable   ground   for   the   belief
\n           consistent  with  the innocence  of  the
\n           accused.  It  needs  no  reminder   that
\n           legally  established  circumstances  and
\n           not  merely indignation of the court can
\n           form  the  basis of conviction  and  the
\n           more  serious  the  crime,  the  greater
\n           should  be  the care taken to scrutinize
\n           the  evidence lest suspicion  takes  the
\n           place of proof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  15.  In  case  of  conviction based  on  circumstantial<\/p>\n
       evidence, as held by the Apex Court in the matter of C.<\/p>\n
       Changa Reddy v. State of A.P.2, the prosecution is<\/p>\n
       required to adduce evidence and such evidence must<\/p>\n
       satisfying the following tests: –\n<\/p>\n
             i.   the circumstances from which an inference of guilt
\n               is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
\n               established;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ii.  those circumstances should of a definite tendency
\nunerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;\n<\/p>\n
             iii. the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a
\n               chain so complete that there is no escape from the
\n               conclusion that within all human probability the crime
\n               was committed by the accused and none else; and
\n             iv.  the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
\n               conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
\n               of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
\n               accused and such evidence should not only be consistent
\n               with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent
\n               with his innocence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  16.  In  the  present case prosecution has  relied  the<\/p>\n
       following circumstances:-\n<\/p>\n
           (i) Dead  body of deceased Chaitram was  found
\n               incised  the room of appellant in  injured
\n               condition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)  At the time of incident at night present
\n               appellant was present in the house at  the
\n               time of commission of such offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (iii)  Present  appellant has not offered  any
\n               explanation that how Chaitram died and who
\n               has caused injury to Chaitram.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (iv)  Present  appellant himself has  gone  to
\n               police  station along with  blood  stained
\n               axe for lodging report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (v)    Present  appellant  made  extrajudicial
\n               confession to the witnesses.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (vi)  Body  of  present appellant was  stained
\n               with  blood  and  same  was  examined   by
\n               doctor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (vii)  Blood  stained found over the  body  of
\n               appellant  was taken out with the help  of
\n               cotton  by the doctor and same was  sealed
\n               and sent for chemical examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (viii)  Blood  stained towel  which  appellant
\n               was  bearing was seized from the appellant
\n               by the Investigating Officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (ix)   Blood   stained  towel  and  axe   were
\n               examined  by Forensic   Science Laboratory
\n               and  presence of blood over axe and  towel
\n               seized   from  the  appellant  and   blood
\n               stained  cotton  taken from  the  body  of
\n               appellant were confirmed  vide Ex. P-22.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  17.  As  per  evidence of PW2 Dr. F.R.  Nirala  he  has<\/p>\n
       examined appellant Shrichand on 14\/6\/03 vide Ex. P-3 no<\/p>\n
       injury was found over his body but his body was stained<\/p>\n
       with blood specially blood was found over both side of<\/p>\n
       the chest, finger of left hand, both the legs, both the<\/p>\n
       toe which was taken out for the help of cotton and was<\/p>\n
       sealed and handed over to the Constable. He has also<\/p>\n
       examined axe which was stained with blood Ex. P-4. In his<\/p>\n
       cross examination he has explained that if the person<\/p>\n
       caught hold the person who would be in bleeding condition<\/p>\n
       even blood stained found on the body of the appellant<\/p>\n
       would not be possible but stained may be occurred if the<\/p>\n
       person will be present in close distance with the person<\/p>\n
       whom other persons has caused injury.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  PW3 Madandas, PW7 Kejuram, PW8 Sukhelal Ratre have     <\/p>\n
       deposed in their evidence that they came to know that son<\/p>\n
       of appellant Chaitram has been murdered then they went to<\/p>\n
       the house of appellant thereafter they went to the police<\/p>\n
       station where appellant was present with axe. They called<\/p>\n
       the appellant and asked in absence of police then he told<\/p>\n
       and made extrajudicial confession that he has committed<\/p>\n
       murder of  his son Chaitram which they recorded Ex. P-9.<\/p>\n
  19.  Defence has cross examined these witnesses at length<\/p>\n
       in which they have specifically deposed that after<\/p>\n
       calling the appellant in separate place in police station<\/p>\n
       premises they have interrogated the appellant  and<\/p>\n
       appellant has made extrajudicial confession before them<\/p>\n
       although PW10 Investigating Officer  C.D. Lahre has<\/p>\n
       deposed in Para-9 of his evidence that at the time of<\/p>\n
       recording  such Panchnama Ex. P-9 he was  present.<\/p>\n
       Definitely, in the present case Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
       himself has directed the villagers to inquire from<\/p>\n
       appellant and appellant himself present in the police<\/p>\n
       station with blood stained axe, appellant has not made<\/p>\n
       any extrajudicial confession to police but statement of<\/p>\n
       PW10 Investigating Officer  C.D. Lahre reveal that he was<\/p>\n
       recorded extrajudicial confession made by appellant in<\/p>\n
       his presence therefore only extrajudicial confession made<\/p>\n
       by appellant to witnesses would not be safe for drawing<\/p>\n
       definite conclusion that too relating to complicity of<\/p>\n
       appellant in crime in question. Evidence of aforesaid<\/p>\n
       witnesses including presence of  PW10 Investigating<\/p>\n
       Officer  C.D. Lahre and defence taken by the appellant<\/p>\n
       reveal that present appellant himself had gone to police<\/p>\n
       station he was present at police station and was holding<\/p>\n
       blood stained axe. As per evidence of doctor blood<\/p>\n
       stained was found on different part of the body of<\/p>\n
       appellant which was taken out with the help of cotton.<\/p>\n
       Chemical examination report reveal that blood  was<\/p>\n
       confirmed on the cotton, axe and cloths which  the<\/p>\n
       appellant was bearing although blood group has not been<\/p>\n
       detected by the Chemical Examiner.\n<\/p>\n
  20.  In  the  present  case present appellant  has  not<\/p>\n
       offered any explanation that how blood was found over his<\/p>\n
       body and in his cloths, who  was present in the house at<\/p>\n
       night and who had caused injuries to his son Chaitram as<\/p>\n
       suggestion given by the defence to PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala in<\/p>\n
       Para-9 of his evidence, he has also not offered any<\/p>\n
       explanation that who has caused injures to his son<\/p>\n
       Chaitram or who was standing near his son Chaitram at the<\/p>\n
       time of causing such injury. Appellant was present<\/p>\n
       incised the house along with his son Chaitram at the time<\/p>\n
       of commission of such incident who was under obligation<\/p>\n
       to explain the circumstances in terms of under Section<\/p>\n
       106 of the Evidence Act but present appellant has not<\/p>\n
       offered any explanation while along with the question of<\/p>\n
       offence  committed in secrecy  and requirement  of<\/p>\n
       explanation.\n<\/p>\n
  21.  As  held  by the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh<\/p>\n
       Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra3, in case murder<\/p>\n
       committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden<\/p>\n
       to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the<\/p>\n
       prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be<\/p>\n
       led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same<\/p>\n
       degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial<\/p>\n
       evidence.  Para 15 of the said judgment reads as under:-<\/p>\n
          “15.   Where  an  offence  like  murder   is
\n          committed  in  secrecy inside a  house,  the
\n          initial  burden to establish the case  would
\n          undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the
\n          nature  and amount of evidence to be led  by
\n          it  to establish the charge cannot be of the
\n          same degree as is required in other cases of
\n          circumstantial evidence. The burden would of
\n          a  comparatively lighter character. In  view
\n          of  Section  106 of the Evidence  Act  there
\n          will  be  a  corresponding  burden  on   the
\n          inmates  of  the  house  to  give  a  cogent
\n          explanation   as  to  how  the   crime   was
\n          committed.  The inmates of the house  cannot
\n          get   away  by  simply  keeping  quiet   and
\n          offering  no  explanation  on  the  supposed
\n          premise  that  the burden to  establish  its
\n          case lies entirely upon the prosecution  and
\n          there  is  no duty at all on an  accused  to
\n          offer any explanation.”\n<\/p>\n
  22.  In  absence of any explanation the only  inference<\/p>\n
       would be possible that present appellant is a person who<\/p>\n
       has committed the offence and is author of the crime and<\/p>\n
       except appellant no other person has committed the<\/p>\n
       offence.\n<\/p>\n
  23.  If aforesaid circumstances are considered together
\n       then only inference would be possible that present
\n       appellant alone has committed the culpable homicide
\n       amounting to murder of his son Chaitram and other than
\n       the appellant nobody has committed the aforesaid offence.\n<\/p>\n
  24.  After appreciating, the evidence available on record<\/p>\n
       learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar<\/p>\n
       has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as<\/p>\n
       aforementioned.  The conviction and sentence of the<\/p>\n
       appellant is based on legal, clinching and credible<\/p>\n
       evidence and  is sustainable under the law.<\/p>\n
  25.  On  close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find<\/p>\n
       any  illegality or infirmity in the conviction and<\/p>\n
       sentence of the appellant. The appeal is devoid of<\/p>\n
       merits. Consequently, criminal appeal is liable to be<\/p>\n
       dismissed and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal 259 OF 2004 Shrichand …Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents ! Shri V P Gupta ^ Shri Arun Sao CORAM: HONBLE MR T P SHARMA ,HONBLE MR R L JHANWAR JJ Dated: 16\/09\/2010 : JUDGEMENT […]<\/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-216283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 - 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\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-19T14:37:29+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\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-19T14:37:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2829,\"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\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-19T14:37:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 - 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\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-19T14:37:29+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\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-19T14:37:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010"},"wordCount":2829,"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\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010","name":"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-19T14:37:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrichand-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shrichand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/216283","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=216283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}