{"id":216294,"date":"2009-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-03T09:42:21","modified_gmt":"2015-05-03T04:12:21","slug":"banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                                                  1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                           AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 418 of 1983\n\n                                  BANSHI LAL\n                                      V\/S\n                                     STATE\n\nDate of Judgment                  :                     17th April, 2009\n\n\n                                 PRESENT\n                        HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.\n                        HON'BLE SHRI C M TOTLA,J.\n\n\nMr. MK GARG, Mr.PRADEEP SHAH, for the appellant\n\nMr. ANIL UPADHYAY, PP, for the respondent.\n\n\nBY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE GUPTA,J.)<\/pre>\n
              The appellant Banshi Lal, by this appeal seeks to<\/p>\n
challenge      the     judgment       of   the   learned      Sessions       Judge,<\/p>\n
Udaipur dated 15.11.1983, passed in Sessions Case No.28\/83,<\/p>\n
convicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and<\/p>\n
sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.100\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              According to the prosecution, the necessary facts<\/p>\n
are,   that    on    24.10.1982,       one    Uday    Singh    lodged    a    First<\/p>\n
Report   at      Police     Station          Ghantaghar,      informing        that<\/p>\n
informant’s     brother     Jagannath         Singh   was     employed   on     the
\n                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
shop of accused Banshi Lal in Bombay and that some two<\/p>\n
months ago, as there was some dispute between the accused<\/p>\n
and his brother Jagannath, his brother came to Udaipur and<\/p>\n
sought employment at the shop of Raju Nai. It was then<\/p>\n
alleged that some 10-15 days ago accused Banshi Lal, who<\/p>\n
lives in Ganeshghati, came to Udaipur, as grandfather of<\/p>\n
Banshi Lal expired, and for the last 8-10 days there was<\/p>\n
altercation between the two. With this it was alleged that<\/p>\n
on that day at about 3 in the afternoon, the informant’s<\/p>\n
brother was going to the shop of Raju, after seeing the<\/p>\n
shooting    of    a   film,   which     was    being   enacted    in   Jagdish<\/p>\n
Chowk, while the informant was also going from his house,<\/p>\n
at Gadiadevra to Jadiyon Ki Hol after taking lunch, at that<\/p>\n
time, Deepak Gaur and Ram Lal Khatik met him, coming from<\/p>\n
opposite direction from towards Ganeshghati, and informed<\/p>\n
him,   that      Banshi   Lal     has   inflicted      knife     injuries    to<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh, who is lying near Hanumanji temple, and<\/p>\n
that   Radheyshyam        and     Madan       Lal   are   standing       there.<\/p>\n
Thereupon     the     informant    rushed      to   the   spot,    and    found<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh lying upside down, in the pool of blood,<\/p>\n
and was bleeding. The victim was taken in a tempo by Deepak<\/p>\n
and Devi Lal Constable to General Hospital in emergency<\/p>\n
ward, where doctor declared him dead. Then leaving Deepak<\/p>\n
and Radheyshyam at General Hospital, he has come to lodge<\/p>\n
the report. On this report a case for offence under Section<\/p>\n
302 IPC was registered, and after completing investigation,<\/p>\n
charge sheet was submitted, and the case was committed.
\n                                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
            Learned trial Court framed charge under Section<\/p>\n
302 IPC against the accused appellant, who obviously denied<\/p>\n
it. During trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses,<\/p>\n
including 4 purportedly eye-witnesses, being P.W.4, P.W.7,<\/p>\n
P.W.8, P.W.13, and the doctor, who conducted post mortem<\/p>\n
report   has      been   produced        as    P.W.3    Dr.   G.L.   Dad.    The<\/p>\n
prosecution tendered in evidence some 25 documents, while<\/p>\n
defence tendered in evidence some police statements of some<\/p>\n
witnesses      being     Ex.D1    to     D5    and     also   examined   D.W.1<\/p>\n
Raghunath Lal in defence. After so completing the trial,<\/p>\n
the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused<\/p>\n
as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The    learned       trial    Court      found    that   P.W.8   and<\/p>\n
P.W.13 did not support the prosecution case and therefore,<\/p>\n
they were declared hostile. However, implicit reliance was<\/p>\n
placed on P.W.4 and P.W.7, being eye-witnesses and P.W.1<\/p>\n
the   informant.       Likewise,    the       learned   trial    Court   relied<\/p>\n
upon the circumstance, about one cover of the knife, being<\/p>\n
Article 4, having been found on the spot, which cover did<\/p>\n
fit in to the knife Article 3 recovered from the possession<\/p>\n
of the accused, on his information and at his instance.<\/p>\n
Though it was found, that knife Article 3 is not stained<\/p>\n
with blood, and according to the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. G.L.<\/p>\n
Dad, the injuries found on the person of the deceased could<\/p>\n
not be caused with that knife.                  Learned trial court also
\n                                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
relied    upon    the       circumstance,            that    the    accused     remained<\/p>\n
absconded    for       a    period       of    more    than    2    months,      and    was<\/p>\n
arrested    only       on    12.1.1983,         of    course,       the      evidence    of<\/p>\n
D.W.1, who was produced to establish the plea of alibi of<\/p>\n
accused was disbelieved, and thus the accused was convicted.<\/p>\n
            Assailing the impugned judgment it was contended<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for the appellant, that the two eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses P.W.4 and 7 have erroneously been relied upon by<\/p>\n
learned      trial          Court,        their        evidence         is     full      of<\/p>\n
discrepancies,         not    only       contradictory         inter-se,        but also<\/p>\n
stands    contradicted            by     the    other       evidence      available      on<\/p>\n
record.    They       being       chance       witnesses,      the      contradictions<\/p>\n
clearly    show,       that       they    are     figuring         as   eye-witnesses,<\/p>\n
despite having not at all seen the incident. It was then<\/p>\n
submitted that the First Information Report in this case<\/p>\n
purports to have been lodged on 24.10.82, but then it has<\/p>\n
been received by the Magistrate only on 29.10.82, and there<\/p>\n
is no satisfactory explanation for all this long delay,<\/p>\n
rather this time was consumed by the Investigating Agency<\/p>\n
in planting or cooking up witnesses to be eye-witnesses,<\/p>\n
and for that purpose, the time was spent in making search<\/p>\n
of   friends     or    acquaintances            of    the     deceased,       and   after<\/p>\n
completion of that search, stories had been cooked up by<\/p>\n
antedating       the       FIR.    While       the    learned       trial     Court     has<\/p>\n
considered it as one of the circumstance, that the FIR was<\/p>\n
lodged    immediately,            and    therein       the    names     of    these     two
\n                                                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
witnesses were there, thus, the whole approach is bad.<\/p>\n
                On        the    other    hand,        learned        Public      Prosecutor<\/p>\n
supported the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                We have considered the submissions, and have gone<\/p>\n
through the record very closely.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                To start with we may take the narration of the<\/p>\n
incident, as made by the two eye-witnesses P.W.4 and 7, and<\/p>\n
then    would         proceed        to    examine,        as     to        whether   their<\/p>\n
testimony inspires any confidence, or as to whether they<\/p>\n
were at all the eye-witnesses. P.W.4 Ram Lal has deposed<\/p>\n
that on the fateful day a shooting of an English Film was<\/p>\n
going      on        at     Ghantaghar,          and     towards        Jagdish       Chowk,<\/p>\n
therefore, there was crowd. At about 2-3 PM he was going<\/p>\n
from towards Ghantaghar to towards Ganeshghati, on the shop<\/p>\n
of   his    brother             Banshi   Khatik,       which     is    on    the    downward<\/p>\n
slope      of    Ganeshghati.             When    he     proceeded          bit    ahead   of<\/p>\n
Ghantaghar, near Dhabaiji Ki Haweli he heard cries, and saw<\/p>\n
the crowd. Then he went there and saw, that Jagannath Singh<\/p>\n
was bleeding, and Banshi Lal, accused present in the Court,<\/p>\n
who was armed with knife, was inflicting blows with knife<\/p>\n
to Jagannath Singh. He had seen Banshi Lal inflicting two<\/p>\n
knife blows to Jagannath Singh on the chest. He had also<\/p>\n
seen Deepak Tempowala (P.W.7) there. Then he went to call<\/p>\n
Uday Singh (P.W.1), the elder brother of Jagannath Singh,
\n                                                                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
and when he had negotiated the up-gradient of Ganeshghati,<\/p>\n
he met Uday Singh, who was coming from his house, who lives<\/p>\n
at the other side of slope. He stated that Uday Singh’s<\/p>\n
brother has been inflicted injuries with knife by Banshi<\/p>\n
Lal.     He    stated        that       he    does      not       know    Madan         Lal    and<\/p>\n
Radheyshyam          (P.W.13         and     P.W.8      respectively).             Uday    Singh<\/p>\n
accompanied him on the spot. Jagannath Singh was lying on<\/p>\n
the    road,       and     Uday      Singh        told,      he   is     going      to    Police<\/p>\n
Station. The Police Station is at a distance about 50 fts,<\/p>\n
that day there was huge crowd in Police Station also, on<\/p>\n
account       of    the     shooting.         Then      police        came    on    the spot.<\/p>\n
Police was brought by Uday Singh. Then Police people called<\/p>\n
a tempo and carried Jagannath to hospital in the tempo. In<\/p>\n
other    tempo,       the       witness       went      to      the    hospital.          He   has<\/p>\n
stated    that        Jagannath         Singh        earlier       used       to   ply     auto-<\/p>\n
rickshaw.          Then    he     has      stated       that      Jagannath        Singh       was<\/p>\n
working as a goldsmith preparing gold and silver ornaments<\/p>\n
at the shop of Banshi Lal in Bombay. The witness had seen<\/p>\n
Jagannath          working      on    the     shop      of    Banshi      Lal      at    Bombay.<\/p>\n
Article 4 cover of the knife was lying at the place, where<\/p>\n
Jagannath          Singh     was     lying.        Then      he    has       identified        the<\/p>\n
articles       being       garments          of    Jagannath          Singh,       has    proved<\/p>\n
certain photographs. Then he has stated that in the photo,<\/p>\n
two injuries X & Y, are visible on the chest, which he saw<\/p>\n
being inflicted. Then in cross-examination he has stated<\/p>\n
that on the place of incident there is Abadi, and people<\/p>\n
might    be        living    there.          He    is     not     acquainted         with      the
\n                                                                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
locality     as    he    lives      in   Khatikwada.       He     has   some   slight<\/p>\n
friendship with Jagannath, and he knows him for the last 6<\/p>\n
months.      Jagannath      had      gone    to     Bombay      some     4-5   months<\/p>\n
before, and after one month thereafter this witness has<\/p>\n
gone to Bombay, and remained there for 4-5 days, and stayed<\/p>\n
at    the   shop    of   accused         Banshi   Lal     itself.       He   has    then<\/p>\n
stated that he had seen Jagannath at Udaipur since about<\/p>\n
one month before the incident, and used to see him at an<\/p>\n
interval of about 4 to 5 days. He has admitted that he is<\/p>\n
facing some 3-4 prosecutions, but denied to be under police<\/p>\n
surveillance. He stated that on the spot there were 10-12<\/p>\n
people, out of whom he knows only Deepak, whom he could<\/p>\n
spot out later, and cannot say as to when Deepak appeared<\/p>\n
on the spot. However, he saw him near Hanumanji temple.<\/p>\n
Then he has stated that the head of Jagannath Singh was<\/p>\n
towards Ghantaghar and legs were towards Ganeshghati. Then<\/p>\n
he has stated that a woman vegetable vendor was sitting,<\/p>\n
but    looking     to    the   quarrel,       she    also    ran      away.    He    has<\/p>\n
stated      that   Deepak      is    not    his     friend      but     he   knew    him<\/p>\n
because of Uday Singh, and does not know as to where Deepak<\/p>\n
lives. Then he has stated that Deepak asked the witness, as<\/p>\n
to where is he going, to which the witness replied, that he<\/p>\n
is going to call the brother of Jagannath Singh. Thereupon<\/p>\n
Deepak followed him. He has denied the suggestion to be<\/p>\n
giving false statement on account of his friendship with<\/p>\n
Uday    Singh      and   Jagannath         Singh.    He     saw    Deepak’s        tempo<\/p>\n
standing at Ghantaghar, at that time, the tempo brought by
\n                                                                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
police was not of Deepak, and that in that tempo Jagannath<\/p>\n
Singh    and    Deepak      went,      while      he    (we)    went     in   tempo    of<\/p>\n
Deepak, by picking up some other driver. He has stated that<\/p>\n
tempos    are     available       at     Ghantaghar        and     there      from    one<\/p>\n
driver was picked up, as the driver asked, as to what had<\/p>\n
happened, and where Deepak has gone, thereupon the witness<\/p>\n
told, that Deepak has gone to hospital and in tempo of<\/p>\n
Deepak,         he should be dropped at the hospital. Police had<\/p>\n
brought tempo from towards Ghantaghar. Then he has stated<\/p>\n
that Uday Singh had returned after going to police station<\/p>\n
after 8-10 minutes, Uday Singh, Deepak and Police people<\/p>\n
had put Jagannath Singh in the tempo, in which, apart from<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh, four persons were there on the rear seat,<\/p>\n
and one was sitting by the side of driver, which comprised<\/p>\n
of two police people, one Deepak, and Uday Singh. Since the<\/p>\n
witness did not see inside the tempo, he cannot say as to<\/p>\n
in what position Jagannath was carried, i.e. sitting or<\/p>\n
lying. Then he has stated, that he cannot say as to since<\/p>\n
how long scuffle was continuing between the deceased and<\/p>\n
the    accused.       However,      when     he    reached,       the    scuffle      was<\/p>\n
going    on,    and    in   his     presence       Banshi       Lal    inflicted two<\/p>\n
knife    injuries.       Then     he    has    stated,         that    Jagannath      was<\/p>\n
running     while       Banshi         Lal    accused       was       chasing.       Then<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh fell down, one knife injury was inflicted<\/p>\n
while Jagannath was running, and more injuries were caused<\/p>\n
with    knife    after      Jagannath        Singh      fell     down.    Banshi      Lal<\/p>\n
continued       to      inflict         knife          injuries.        The    witness
\n                                                                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
went to call Uday Singh, he did not go to intervene because<\/p>\n
seeing Banshi Lal armed with knife he got frightened. He<\/p>\n
has maintained, that he saw knife in the hand of Banshi<\/p>\n
Lal, which was 10 inch long. Then he also seen the cover of<\/p>\n
the    knife    made   of    leather,         but    then    he    cannot   identify<\/p>\n
knife properly. Then he has stated, that in the mortuary<\/p>\n
police    has     asked      him      to     come     to    police      station    for<\/p>\n
interrogation. However, when his statements were recorded<\/p>\n
Uday    Singh    did   not      come    to    police       Station,      rather Uday<\/p>\n
Singh    was     called         the    next        day.    He     has    denied   the<\/p>\n
suggestion, that the tempo which Jagannath Singh used to<\/p>\n
ply, belonged to his brother, rather that belonged to his<\/p>\n
community person. Then he was confronted with some portion<\/p>\n
of his police statement being Ex.D\/1, being A to B, wherein<\/p>\n
he deposed about Radheyshyam and Madan Lal being present on<\/p>\n
the spot. Then some questions were put to him about Banshi<\/p>\n
Lal’s shop in Bombay.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Then we come to the evidence of P.W.7 Deepak Gaur,<\/p>\n
the other alleged eye-witness. He has stated, that he had<\/p>\n
known Jagannath Singh and also knows the accused present in<\/p>\n
the Court. The witness plies auto-rickshaw. Then he has<\/p>\n
stated that on the fateful day after dropping a passenger<\/p>\n
on the top of Ganeshghati, he was coming down the slope,<\/p>\n
and saw Banshi Lal and Jagannath Singh grappling with each<\/p>\n
other,    there    was      a    crowd,       he    parked      his     tempo   behind<\/p>\n
Hanuman temple. He did not see any weapon in the hand of
\n                                                                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
Banshi     Lal,       rather     Banshi      Lal     and    Jagannath       Singh     were<\/p>\n
grappling        with    hands       only.    There        one    Ram     Lal   was   also<\/p>\n
there. Then he called Jagannath Singh’s elder brother Uday<\/p>\n
Singh. When he went to Ganeshghati, Uday Singh met him on<\/p>\n
the way on the top of the Ghati, and both these persons<\/p>\n
came down to the place of incident, at that place they<\/p>\n
found Jagannath Singh lying on the ground in a pool of<\/p>\n
blood.     Banshi       Lal    was     not    available          there.    On   that day<\/p>\n
there was a shooting of some English film, and there was<\/p>\n
huge     crowd    between        the    Clock       Tower    to    City    Palace, the<\/p>\n
shops on Ganeshghati were also closed, Hanumanji temple is<\/p>\n
at   a   distance        about    20-25       fts.,    the       scuffle    was    taking<\/p>\n
place on the road, Jagannath Singh was having stab injuries<\/p>\n
on the chest, and was bleeding. Then he has proved the<\/p>\n
photographs. In cross-examination, the witness has deposed<\/p>\n
that he is plying tempo for last 6 years. Jagannath Singh<\/p>\n
was also plying tempo. Ram Lal was also occasionally plying<\/p>\n
tempo, the place of incident is at a distance about 1\u00bd mile<\/p>\n
from his residence. At the time when Jagannath Singh and<\/p>\n
Banshi Lal were grappling, some 25-30 people had collected,<\/p>\n
out of whom he knows only Ram Lal, who was standing near<\/p>\n
him.     Then    he     has    stated,       that    when    the     witness      started<\/p>\n
going, Ram Lal asked him as to where is he going, to which<\/p>\n
the witness replied, that he is going to call the brother<\/p>\n
of the victim. Then Ram Lal accompanied him. He has deposed<\/p>\n
to be knowing Uday Lal for last 2 – 2\u00bd years. His tempo was<\/p>\n
parked outside the shops towards Mahawat Wadi, which place
\n                                                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
is at a distance about 20-25 paces towards the Ghantaghar.<\/p>\n
Then he has stated that as soon as they reached at the top<\/p>\n
of   Ganeshghati      they   found    Uday   Lal,    at   the   place      where<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh was lying, some 50-60 people had collected,<\/p>\n
then he has stated, that he, Uday Lal and one constable put<\/p>\n
Jagannath     Singh    in    the   tempo.    He    does   not   know,      as   to<\/p>\n
wherefrom     the    tempo    came,   and    who    brought     it.   In    that<\/p>\n
tempo, three persons were there, being the witness, Uday<\/p>\n
Lal, constable, and Jagannath Singh. He does not know, as<\/p>\n
to who was driving the tempo. According to this witness,<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh was put on the knees of the passengers of<\/p>\n
the tempo, in which process the garments of the witness and<\/p>\n
Uday Lal got smeared with blood, though he does not know,<\/p>\n
as to whether garments of constable also received blood<\/p>\n
stains or not. He has then stated, that when they reached<\/p>\n
back   with   Uday    Lal,    another   tempo      was    available     on the<\/p>\n
spot, where Jagannath Singh was lying, and on account of<\/p>\n
crowd, he could not carry the victim in his tempo. After<\/p>\n
leaving Jagannath to hospital, after around 1\u00bd hour he came<\/p>\n
back to take away his tempo. His statement was recorded by<\/p>\n
police on the next day, at that time Uday Lal was not with<\/p>\n
him. Ram Lal was examined in his presence. Then he was<\/p>\n
confronted with his portion A to B of his police statement<\/p>\n
Ex.D\/2, which he disowned, wherein he has stated that he<\/p>\n
had parked his tempo towards Mahawat Badi and kept sitting<\/p>\n
therein. Then he has stated, that he was sitting in the<\/p>\n
tempo for the last 5 – 10 minutes. Then he has denied the
\n                                                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
suggestion about giving false statement on account of his<\/p>\n
acquaintance    with        Jagannath    Singh      and    his   brother.     He<\/p>\n
stated, that Uday Lal had called him to give statement in<\/p>\n
police station, at that time, Ram Lal was standing outside.<\/p>\n
Then he has stated that he had left Ram Lal on the spot,<\/p>\n
and when after dropping Jagannath in the hospital, he was<\/p>\n
returning, he found Ram Lal standing outside the hospital.<\/p>\n
Then in the end of the cross-examination he has stated,<\/p>\n
that he did not see the stab injuries on Jagannath on the<\/p>\n
spot, but had seen them at the house of Uday Lal.<\/p>\n
           Then we may better come to the evidence of P.W.1<\/p>\n
Uday   Singh.   He    has    stated     that   Jagannath      Singh     was his<\/p>\n
younger brother and was working at shop of Raju Nai as a<\/p>\n
silversmith,    and    was     earlier    working     alike      with   accused<\/p>\n
Banshi Lal, present in the Court. Prior to the incident<\/p>\n
deceased had come from Bombay to Udaipur. Banshi Lal who<\/p>\n
works in Bombay had come to Udaipur some 7-8 days before<\/p>\n
the incident, and thereafter there had been some dispute<\/p>\n
between the two, on the aspect of cash dealings. According<\/p>\n
to him, shop of Raju Nai, where Jagannath Singh was working<\/p>\n
is situated near Karjali house, which is on the way between<\/p>\n
Ganeshghati and Mahawat Wadi. With this he has stated, that<\/p>\n
about 5-6 months ago at about 3-3.15 in the noon, some<\/p>\n
shooting of English film was going on in Jagdish Chowk, the<\/p>\n
witness   had   come    to     his    house    to   take    lunch,      and   was<\/p>\n
returning on the job, from his house situated at Gadiadevra
\n                                                                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
through Ganeshghati when he reached at top of Ghati, Deepak<\/p>\n
and Ram Lal came, and informed, that his brother has been<\/p>\n
stabbed by Banshi Lal near Hanumanji temple in Ganeshghati.<\/p>\n
Then he rushed, and found his brother lying upside down,<\/p>\n
and bleeding from the chest. He did not notice as to who<\/p>\n
other persons were near him. Then he has stated that police<\/p>\n
people       had     also     come        there,       some        40-50     people      had<\/p>\n
collected, and Deepak and Ram Lal also followed him. Then<\/p>\n
the   witness       and     Deepak        etc.   put    Jagannath          Singh    in the<\/p>\n
tempo    and       carried    him     to       hospital.      In     that    tempo       this<\/p>\n
witness, Deepak, and Devi Lal were there, and in another<\/p>\n
tempo, which was following, Radheyshyam, Madan Lal, Ram Lal<\/p>\n
and one constable were there. Jagannath Singh was declared<\/p>\n
dead in the hospital. Then he went to police station to<\/p>\n
lodge    a     report,       which        is     Ex.P\/1.      He     has     proved      the<\/p>\n
signatures thereon. Then he has proved various memos. In<\/p>\n
cross-examination he has deposed, that he saw Ram Lal today<\/p>\n
down stairs in the Court, and did not see him outside the<\/p>\n
Court.    Inquest          report    was       prepared       at    about     5    PM.   The<\/p>\n
garments       of    the    witness        got    smeared      with        blood    in   the<\/p>\n
process of putting his brother in the tempo. The victim was<\/p>\n
put on the legs of all the occupants of the tempo, head was<\/p>\n
on the legs of Deepak, who was sitting on the right hand<\/p>\n
side, Devi Lal was also in the tempo. He has stated that<\/p>\n
police station is near Ganeshghati, where by chance one<\/p>\n
tempo    was    found.       He     has    maintained,         that    he    called the<\/p>\n
tempo, whose driver was not his acquaintance. He has denied
\n                                                                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
the suggestion, about his having not carried the victim to<\/p>\n
hospital in the tempo, rather to have reached hospital at<\/p>\n
about 7 in the evening. Then he has stated that he told the<\/p>\n
police    that    his    brother     had    been     killed.      Thereupon      the<\/p>\n
police people entertained the report. He has maintained,<\/p>\n
that he told the police, that his brother has been killed<\/p>\n
by Banshi Lal. Thereupon his signatures were obtained on<\/p>\n
the   report.     He     has    stated,     that    on     the    spot,   head    of<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh was near drain towards the south and was<\/p>\n
lying outside the shop of a Bohra, which is at a distance<\/p>\n
of 30-35 paces from the Hanumanji temple. Deepak and Ram<\/p>\n
Lal were coming to call him from his house, who are in his<\/p>\n
acquaintance for 2\u00bd – 3 years. They know his house, because<\/p>\n
of the deceased, and might be his friends also. He has<\/p>\n
stated, that Deepak plies tempo, while his brother was also<\/p>\n
earlier plying tempo. Then he has stated that the police<\/p>\n
station is at a distance about 20-25 paces from the place,<\/p>\n
where     Jagannath      Singh     was     lying.     Jagannath       Singh      was<\/p>\n
straightway carried to hospital, and not to police station,<\/p>\n
he was wearing the same garments when he went to the police<\/p>\n
station    to    lodge    the     report,    and    did     not    notice   as    to<\/p>\n
whether    they    were        stained    with     blood    or    not.    Then    he<\/p>\n
maintained, that he had gone all alone to lodge the report.<\/p>\n
Ram Lal and Deepak did not accompany him. His statements<\/p>\n
were recorded on that very day, while statements of Deepak<\/p>\n
and Ram Lal were recorded at about 6 in the evening. He has<\/p>\n
stated, that from hospital he first went to his house, and
\n                                                                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
thereafter         after   about    10-15      minutes       he    went    to    police<\/p>\n
station, and thereafter, Ram Lal and Deepak reached the<\/p>\n
police station. He has stated that when his statements were<\/p>\n
being recorded, these two persons came to police station on<\/p>\n
their own. He has denied the suggestion, about his having<\/p>\n
disclosed the names of Deepak and Ram Lal to the police<\/p>\n
after three days of the incident.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              From a collective reading of the statements of<\/p>\n
these      three    witnesses,      it   is    more    than       clear,    that the<\/p>\n
evidence of the three witnesses is thoroughly discrepant,<\/p>\n
and demolishes each other. According to P.W.7 the accused<\/p>\n
was not armed with any weapon, and the accused and deceased<\/p>\n
were grappling with hands only. Obviously when he claims<\/p>\n
that P.W.4 and 7 both went together to call Uday Singh, and<\/p>\n
when P.W.4 wants the Court to believe that in his presence<\/p>\n
two     knife      injuries     were     caused       on    the     chest       of   the<\/p>\n
deceased, obviously it could not be, that one witness would<\/p>\n
see the accused empty handed, and the other witness would<\/p>\n
see the accused causing stab injuries to the victim, if the<\/p>\n
two     witnesses      were     there     on     the       spot,    had     seen     the<\/p>\n
incident. Then according to P.W.4 the victim was running,<\/p>\n
and   while     so    running      one   knife    blow       was    caused      to   the<\/p>\n
victim, and after the victim fell down more injuries with<\/p>\n
knife were caused. It is nowhere the case, that there was<\/p>\n
any scuffle, and after the scuffle, the victim ran away,<\/p>\n
and   in    that     process,      the   occurrence         occurred      as    P.W. 4
\n                                                                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
wants the Court to believe, and then the two witnesses went<\/p>\n
to fetch Uday Singh. Likewise if the version of P.W.4 were<\/p>\n
required to be believed, then obviously injuries must have<\/p>\n
been on the back portion of the deceased, while the two<\/p>\n
injuries No.1 and 2, rather all injuries, are on the front<\/p>\n
portion of the body of the deceased. Body was lying upside<\/p>\n
down, and obviously there is no injury available on the<\/p>\n
person, which might have been caused after the deceased had<\/p>\n
fallen     down.     This,    in    our    view,   is    a     very    material<\/p>\n
contradiction between the statements of P.W.4 and 7, and<\/p>\n
the     prosecution     has   not    clarified     the       things,    in    re-<\/p>\n
examination of the witness P.W.7. Then both these witnesses<\/p>\n
P.W.4 and 7 are over enthusiastic to assert, by deposing<\/p>\n
himself as the truthful witness, and in that process, had<\/p>\n
demolished each others’ evidence. In this regard it may be<\/p>\n
observed,     that    according      to   P.W.4    it    was    he,    who    has<\/p>\n
started to go to call Uday Singh, whereupon Deepak asked<\/p>\n
him, as to where is he going and on his disclosing to be<\/p>\n
going    to   fetch    Uday    Singh,     Deepak   accompanied         him.   As<\/p>\n
against this, according to P.W.7 Deepak, he started moving<\/p>\n
to call Uday Singh, whereupon Ram Lal asked him as to where<\/p>\n
is he going, and on his giving out to be going to fetch<\/p>\n
Uday Singh, Ram Lal accompanied him. It is good that Uday<\/p>\n
Singh has deposed that both these witnesses had met him<\/p>\n
together,     perhaps    otherwise        the   things   would        have   been<\/p>\n
still worst. Then the evidence of the two witnesses, if<\/p>\n
read in conjunction with statement of P.W.1 Uday Singh, on
\n                                                                                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
the aspect, as to who brought the tempo, in which tempo<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh was carried, who was travelling in that<\/p>\n
tempo   along       with   Jagannath        Singh,    where-from          the    other<\/p>\n
tempo came, whose the other tempo was, and who was the<\/p>\n
occupants of that other tempo, the evidence on record is<\/p>\n
thoroughly discrepant. In this regard according to P.W.1,<\/p>\n
in one tempo Uday Singh, Deepak and Devi Lal were there,<\/p>\n
wherein       Jagannath      was     carried,        while        in    the      tempo<\/p>\n
following,      Radheyshyam,        Madan    Lal     and    one     constable       was<\/p>\n
there and he does not know, as to, to whom that tempo<\/p>\n
belonged. As against this, according to P.W.4, Uday Singh<\/p>\n
brought police man, which was not called by Uday Singh,<\/p>\n
rather according to Uday Singh, police people came on their<\/p>\n
own,    and    police      people    called     the        tempo,      and    carried<\/p>\n
Jagannath      to    hospital.       This     witness       Ram     Lal      went   to<\/p>\n
hospital in another tempo. Then in cross-examination he has<\/p>\n
tried to clarify, that in one tempo wherein Jagannath Singh<\/p>\n
was carried, four persons were sitting on the rear seat,<\/p>\n
being two police people, one Deepak and one Uday Singh, and<\/p>\n
that, that tempo was brought by police people. Still as<\/p>\n
against all these, according to P.W.7, in examination-in-<\/p>\n
chef, he does not say anything about victim being carried<\/p>\n
to hospital. However, in cross-examination he has stated,<\/p>\n
that he does not know, as to where from the tempo came,<\/p>\n
wherein Jagannath Singh was carried, and who brought that<\/p>\n
tempo. However, in that tempo three persons were sitting,<\/p>\n
being   himself,      Uday    Lal,    Constable       and     Jagannath         Singh.
\n                                                                                     18<\/span><\/p>\n
According to him Jagannath Singh was put on the knees of<\/p>\n
the passengers, and his and Uday Lal’s garments got smeared<\/p>\n
with blood. Then he has stated, that he had gone to fetch<\/p>\n
his own tempo after 1 \u00bd hour. He does not talk of any other<\/p>\n
tempo following them etc. Thus he contradicts all these<\/p>\n
witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Further there is evidence of P.W.6 Shanker Lal,<\/p>\n
and P.W.11 Devi Lal. These two persons are the constables<\/p>\n
of   the   Police.      According       to    P.W.6,    on    that     day   he    was<\/p>\n
posted as a Constable, and was detailed on duty at the<\/p>\n
place of shooting. Along with him Devi Lal was also on<\/p>\n
duty. Then at about 3 in the noon, he heard that some<\/p>\n
dispute has arisen towards Ganeshghati, thereupon he along<\/p>\n
with Devi Lal went towards Ganeshghati, saw a big crowd<\/p>\n
there,     and   people       were      telling      that      there      has     been<\/p>\n
stabbing. It was learnt that Jagannath Singh has received<\/p>\n
knife    injuries,      who    was    lying    on    the     road    upside down,<\/p>\n
outside the shop of Subhash Chandra and was bleeding. Then<\/p>\n
he along with Devi Lal put Jagannath Singh in the tempo and<\/p>\n
carried him to hospital. When these two constables reached<\/p>\n
the spot Uday Singh the elder brother of the victim had<\/p>\n
also     come,   who     also     accompanied          to    hospital.       In    the<\/p>\n
hospital    it   was    told     that    Jagannath          Singh   has     died. In<\/p>\n
cross-examination        he     has   stated,       that     head    of   Jagannath<\/p>\n
Singh was towards west and feet was towards the east. At<\/p>\n
that    time,    some    50     people       had    collected.       Then    he    has
\n                                                                                   19<\/span><\/p>\n
stated, that he and Devi Lal had put Jagannath Singh in the<\/p>\n
tempo, which tempo was coming from towards Ganeshghati. The<\/p>\n
tempo arrived there after 5 minutes after arrival of these<\/p>\n
witnesses,    and    tempowala     came      on   his   own.       In    the tempo<\/p>\n
there was 2-3 persons only, being the witness, Devi Lal and<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh. Jagannath Singh was made to lie down on<\/p>\n
the knees of the passengers in the tempo. Jagannath Singh’s<\/p>\n
brother also came to hospital, following them in some other<\/p>\n
tempo, and met the witness outside the mortuary.<\/p>\n
             Then we come to the evidence of Devi Lal P.W.11,<\/p>\n
the other constable. He has also deposed, that on 24.10.82<\/p>\n
he was posted as constable at police station Ghantaghar,<\/p>\n
and was detailed for traffic management till completion of<\/p>\n
shooting. He along with Shanker Lal was detailed at Maji Ki<\/p>\n
Bawdi. At about 3 in the noon there was a cry that stabbing<\/p>\n
has taken place at Ganeshghati, and there has been some<\/p>\n
dispute.     Thereupon       he      and     Shanker         Lal        rushed    to<\/p>\n
Ganeshghati,       and    found   on   the    shop      of   Subhash       Murdia,<\/p>\n
Jagannath Singh lying upside down, and bleeding profusely.<\/p>\n
On their arrival, Jagannath Singh’s brother Uday Singh came<\/p>\n
on the spot. At some distance from the victim one tempo had<\/p>\n
stopped,     who    was    called,     therein       Jagannath          Singh    was<\/p>\n
carried to hospital, and doctors declared him dead. He has<\/p>\n
proved the photographs, and article 4. In cross-examination<\/p>\n
he could not be shaken.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
               Then    P.W.5     Satyanarayn            is    the    person,         who    was<\/p>\n
plying tempo No. RJY 9395. He has deposed, that when he<\/p>\n
came in the tempo just ahead of Hanumanji temple, he saw a<\/p>\n
person lying on the road upside down in a pool of blood.<\/p>\n
Since there was not enough passage to pass, he had to stop.<\/p>\n
Then    police        people    asked       him        to    carry       the    victim      to<\/p>\n
hospital,      and     put     him    in    his     tempo.         After       showing      the<\/p>\n
photograph Ex.P\/7 he has identified, that this was the same<\/p>\n
person who was carried in the tempo. Thus, this P.W.5 is<\/p>\n
the person, in whose tempo, the deceased was carried to<\/p>\n
hospital. In cross-examination he has stated, that in his<\/p>\n
tempo some 5-6 persons travelled. The victim was put on the<\/p>\n
ground, some 3-4 persons set on the rear seat, and one<\/p>\n
person set by his side. The occupants included two police<\/p>\n
people, and he does not know, the other two persons.<\/p>\n
               Then     significantly,            at     this       place      it    may    be<\/p>\n
noticed,       that     P.W.4        Ram     Lal       has      deposed         in    cross-<\/p>\n
examination, that he (we) went in the tempo of Deepak, and<\/p>\n
to     drive    that     tempo       some     other          driver      was     procured.<\/p>\n
Deepak’s       tempo    was     standing       at       the     clock       tower.     After<\/p>\n
Jagannath       Singh’s        being       taken       away     to       hospital,         this<\/p>\n
witness went to Ghantaghar, where there is a tempo stand,<\/p>\n
where-from he picked up a driver, who asked him as to what<\/p>\n
had happened, to which he gave out, that a dispute has<\/p>\n
taken place, then he asked as to where Deepak has gone, to<\/p>\n
which    he    replied       that    Deepak       has       gone    to    hospital, and
\n                                                                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
requested him to drop to hospital in the tempo of Deepak.<\/p>\n
              Thus, the whole story of Deepak coming to the<\/p>\n
spot after 1-\u00bd hour to pick up his tempo falls flat, and<\/p>\n
the story as given out by different witnesses, narrated<\/p>\n
above is re-reconcilable, as to who accompanied the victim<\/p>\n
to    hospital,      in     what    condition     the     victim    was   carried,<\/p>\n
because P.W. 1 and 7 want the Court to believe, that the<\/p>\n
victim    was     carried,         being   kept      on   the    legs,    with   the<\/p>\n
result, that their cloths got smeared with blood, while the<\/p>\n
person in whose tempo the victim was carried, being P.W.5,<\/p>\n
deposed a completely otherwise story. Obviously attempt on<\/p>\n
the    part     of    the    P.W.4     and    7   is      to    establish,    their<\/p>\n
reliability, which rather stands negatived. Significantly<\/p>\n
they have not produced their blood stained cloths to the<\/p>\n
police, to lend assurance. Likewise, according to P.W.6 the<\/p>\n
constable Shanker Lal, they carried the victim to hospital,<\/p>\n
while Uday Singh and Deepak want the Court to believe, that<\/p>\n
it was they, who carried the injured to hospital.<\/p>\n
              All      these         things       acquire        still       greater\n\nsignificance         from    the    fact,     that     admittedly     before     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
victim was removed from the place of incident, police had<\/p>\n
come. According to P.W.4, Uday Singh had gone to police<\/p>\n
station, and called the police people, while according to<\/p>\n
P.W.1, police people had also come on the spot, obviously<\/p>\n
meaning thereby, that he does not want to say, that he did
\n                                                                                      22<\/span><\/p>\n
not go to call them. According to P.W.6 and 11, while on<\/p>\n
duty they heard the rumour about the incident, and they<\/p>\n
reached      the   spot     on    their    own,     and    it    was    after     their<\/p>\n
arrival, that Uday Singh came. It is obvious, that whatever<\/p>\n
be the situation, commission of a cognisable office did<\/p>\n
come    to    be    disclosed       before     the       victim     was    moved    to<\/p>\n
hospital, and when the police people were there, and as the<\/p>\n
prosecution wants the Court to believe, that P.W.4 and 7<\/p>\n
were the eye-witnesses, the only natural conduct was, that<\/p>\n
the    report      should    have       been   immediately         lodged    at    the<\/p>\n
police station, which was on the way to hospital, and at<\/p>\n
least it should have been very well conveyed to the two<\/p>\n
constables,        who    were    the     persons     in    authority      that    the<\/p>\n
accused      had    stabbed      the     victim     in     their    presence,      but<\/p>\n
admittedly this was not done.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              In    this     background,        the       fact     that    this     FIR<\/p>\n
reaches the Magistrate as late as on 29th October acquires<\/p>\n
greater significance, and creates a grave suspicion about<\/p>\n
its    genuineness.        The    possibilities          cannot    be     ruled    out,<\/p>\n
that this time was consumed in cooking up witnesses, and<\/p>\n
antedated FIR was prepared.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              True it is, that relative witnesses, or chance<\/p>\n
witnesses, or acquaintance witnesses, cannot be, and need<\/p>\n
not    be,    discarded      on    that     ground        alone,    but    here     the<\/p>\n
circumstances are glaring, which show, that only that type
\n                                                                                    23<\/span><\/p>\n
of     witnesses      have     been    projected      to     figure       as     eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses, despite their not being the eye-witnesses. It is<\/p>\n
well-nigh possible, that the two constables P.W.6 and 11,<\/p>\n
on hearing the rumour went on the spot, found the victim<\/p>\n
lying    in   an     injured    condition,      and    at    that        time,    his<\/p>\n
brother also having come there, the victim may have been<\/p>\n
carried    to     hospital,     where     he   was    declared       dead.       Then<\/p>\n
probably case diary was kept open, formal investigation was<\/p>\n
conducted,      and    after     the     prosecution       could     succeed       in<\/p>\n
manufacturing,        or     planting,     eye-witnesses,          the    FIR     was<\/p>\n
registered, and was sent to Magistrate only on 29.10.82. It<\/p>\n
may be observed here that the requirement of law is to<\/p>\n
forthwith forward the report to the Magistrate, and this<\/p>\n
forwarding      is    not    dependent    on   it    being    a    working day,<\/p>\n
rather the FIR is to be forwarded even to the residence of<\/p>\n
the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Over and above all this, there is a million dollar<\/p>\n
circumstance, viz. that the knife article 3 is a single<\/p>\n
edged knife, while from a look at the photographs Ex.7 and<\/p>\n
11, read with the post mortem report, and the statement of<\/p>\n
doctor P.W.3, it is clear, that the wound found on the<\/p>\n
person of the deceased, being injury No. 1 and 2, is an<\/p>\n
oval     shaped      wound,     with     all   margins        clear-cut,         and<\/p>\n
according to P.W.3, such an injury could not be caused by<\/p>\n
the weapon like knife article 3. Rather the weapon should<\/p>\n
be having both edges to be sharp, and also having sharp
\n                                                                          24<\/span><\/p>\n
tip. In this background, as found by learned trial Court,<\/p>\n
that knife article 3 was not stained with blood, and was<\/p>\n
not   sent    for   forensic    examination     either.    If   the    two<\/p>\n
witnesses P.W.4 and 7 had seen the incident, they could<\/p>\n
have very well at least deposed, that the accused was not<\/p>\n
having this knife article 3, but was having a double edged<\/p>\n
and sharp tipped knife, which they have not deposed.<\/p>\n
             So far as the circumstance relied upon by the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court, about absconding of the accused is<\/p>\n
concerned, it would suffice to say, that even according to<\/p>\n
the prosecution, the accused carries on business in Bombay,<\/p>\n
though he is a resident of Udaipur, and had come to Udaipur<\/p>\n
on account of the bereavement in his family, comprising of<\/p>\n
a death of his grandfather. In such circumstances, if he<\/p>\n
had   gone   back   to   Bombay,     and    could   be   arrested     after<\/p>\n
sometime,     it    cannot     be   said,    that   the    accused     was<\/p>\n
absconding, with an incrementing mind. Thus, the learned<\/p>\n
trial Court was in error in relying upon this circumstance<\/p>\n
as well.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The net result of the aforesaid discussion is,<\/p>\n
that in our view the prosecution has failed to prove beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt, that the offence was committed by the<\/p>\n
appellant accused Banshi Lal only. Consequently, the appeal<\/p>\n
is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, and the<\/p>\n
appellant Banshi Lal is acquitted of the charge. He is on
\n                                                                    25<\/span><\/p>\n
bail,   his   bail   bonds   are   cancelled,   and   he   need   not<\/p>\n
surrender.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 ( C M TOTLA ),J.                               ( N P GUPTA ),J.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 418 of 1983 BANSHI LAL V\/S STATE Date of Judgment : 17th April, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBanshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 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\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-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=\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-03T04:12:21+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T04:12:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6040,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T04:12:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 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":"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 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\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-03T04:12:21+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T04:12:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"},"wordCount":6040,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","name":"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T04:12:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshi-lal-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banshi Lal vs State on 17 April, 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\/216294","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=216294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216294\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}