{"id":217517,"date":"2009-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-28T20:06:19","modified_gmt":"2016-09-28T14:36:19","slug":"santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n                Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2005\n\n\n\n\n                        Santoshdhari\n                                   ...Petitioners\n\n\n                            Versus\n\n\n\n                      The State of Chhattisgarh\n                                                ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n     (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL          \n                       PROCEDURE, 1973)\n\n\n!     Mr.K.A.Ansari,  Senior  Advocate with  Mrs.Meera  Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant\n\n\n\n^     Mr.Akhil     Mishra,     Dy.Govt.Advocate     for      the State\/respondent\n\n\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J \n\n\n\n       Dated:27\/07\/2009\n\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n-----------------------\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>                (Delivered on 27th July, 2009)<\/p>\n<p>     The  appellant  who is husband of deceased Prema  Bai  has<br \/>\nchallenged  the  legality  and propriety  of  the  judgment  of<br \/>\nconviction and order of sentence dated 29.6.2005 passed by  the<br \/>\nAdditional  Sessions Judge, Korba, in Sessions Trial  No.1\/2004<br \/>\nwhereby  and  whereunder the learned Additional Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nafter  holding the appellant guilty for the offence  punishable<br \/>\nunder  Sections  498-A  and  304-B of  the  Indian  Penal  Code<br \/>\nsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years  and<br \/>\nto  pay  a fine of Rs.3000\/-, in default of payment of fine  to<br \/>\nfurther undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment for 7 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged<br \/>\non  the  ground  that without there being an iota  of  evidence<br \/>\nrelating  to  commission of cruelty and torture  in  connection<br \/>\nwith  demand of dowry soon before death of Prema Bai, the Court<br \/>\nbelow   has   convicted   and  sentenced   the   appellant   as<br \/>\naforementioned and thereby committed an illegality.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Case  of  the prosecution, in brief, is that the  present<br \/>\nappellant is husband of deceased Prema Bai who married with the<br \/>\nappellant in the month of June, 2003 and died on 27.4.2004 as a<br \/>\nresult of hanging herself in the house of the appellant.  After<br \/>\nmarriage  of Prema Bai, the appellant and their relatives  used<br \/>\nto demand of dowry especially television, motor-cycle and other<br \/>\narticles  and as a result of such demand, torture and  cruelty,<br \/>\nshe  committed  suicide. Merg intimation  was  registered  vide<br \/>\nEx.P\/6  on  27.4.2004  and  on the  basis  of  merg  intimation<br \/>\nregistered merg was recorded vide Ex.P\/8. Investigating officer<br \/>\nproceeded  for the scene of occurrence and after summoning  the<br \/>\nwitnesses,  inquest was prepared over the body of the  deceased<br \/>\nvide  Ex.P\/8.  Dead  body  was sent for  autopsy  vide  Ex.P\/9.<br \/>\nAutopsy  was  conducted by the team of doctor vide  Ex.P\/5  and<br \/>\nopined  that  cause  of  death was  asphyxia  as  a  result  of<br \/>\nantemortem  hanging.  Spot  map was prepared  by  patwari  vide<br \/>\nEx.P\/2. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P\/7.<br \/>\nSpot  map  was  prepared vide Ex.P\/10. F.I.R. was  lodged  vide<br \/>\nEx.P\/12.\n<\/p>\n<p>  4.   After  recording the statements of the  witnesses  under<br \/>\nSection  161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in  short<br \/>\n`Code&#8217;) and after completion of investigation, one charge sheet<br \/>\nwas filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katghora who in<br \/>\nturn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur from<br \/>\nwhere  learned  Additional Sessions Judge, Korba  received  the<br \/>\nsame on transfer for trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    In order to prove the guilt of the accused\/appellant, the<br \/>\nprosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. Statement  of<br \/>\nthe accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he<br \/>\ndenied  the  circumstances appearing against him and  innocency<br \/>\nand  false  implication  is  pleaded.  Appellant  has  examined<br \/>\nhimself as defence witness and taken the defence that Prema Bai<br \/>\nwas  married to him in the year 2003 and at that time there was<br \/>\nno  demand  of dowry. After her marriage behavior of Prema  Bai<br \/>\nwith the appellant was abnormal. Sometime she used to press his<br \/>\nneck  and used to bite the ear. She used to misbehave with  the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant. He has also stated that even  there  was  no<br \/>\nconsumption of marriage. He has tried his level best but he was<br \/>\nnot  succeeded to maintain physical relation with the deceased.<br \/>\nHe  has  lodged  the report (Ex.D\/2) on 3.10.2003  against  the<br \/>\ndeceased   and   also   examined    Daulatram   Dhari   (DW-2),<br \/>\nSmt.Ramkunwar Bai (DW-3), Ku. Uma (DW-4), Bharat  Ratre  (DW-5)<br \/>\nand Milan Ratre (DW-6), A.Tirki (DW-7) and Awadh Ram (DW-8)  as<br \/>\ndefence witnesses. Defence witnesses have also deposed that the<br \/>\naccused  persons  had  not committed cruelty  or  torture  upon<br \/>\ndeceased  Prema Bai. Deceased Prema Bai was residing  with  the<br \/>\npresent  appellant  after her marriage. They  have  denied  any<br \/>\ndemand of dowry. A.Tirki (DW-7) has proved Ex.D\/2.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Learned  Additional  Sessions Judge  after  affording  an<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to the parties, convicted and  sentenced<br \/>\nthe appellant as aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    I  have  heard Mr. K.A.Ansari, Senior Counsel Mrs.  Meera<br \/>\nJaiswal, counsel for the appellant and Mr.Akhil Mishra,  Deputy<br \/>\nGovernment  Advocate for the State\/respondent and  perused  the<br \/>\njudgment impugned and record of the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued  that<br \/>\nthe  appellant was married with deceased Prema Bai but behavior<br \/>\nof  Prema Bai was not normal and cordial. She did not like  the<br \/>\nappellant and used to misbehave with him. Sometime she tried to<br \/>\npress her neck. Sometime she used to bite his ear and even  she<br \/>\nhas  refused  to  maintain matrimonial  relation.  The  present<br \/>\nappellant  never  demanded  motorcycle,  television  and  other<br \/>\narticles  and  after  death of Prema Bai he  has  been  falsely<br \/>\nimplicated  the  present appellant. The present  appellant  has<br \/>\nlodged the report on 3.10.2003 against the deceased relating to<br \/>\nher  misbehavior. Learned counsel further submits that  on  the<br \/>\ndate  of alleged incident, the appellant was juvenile and below<br \/>\nthe  age  of  18 years but the Court below has disbelieved  the<br \/>\nclaim of the appellant. Conviction by the Sessions Judge to the<br \/>\njuvenile  is apparently and in the absence of any credible  and<br \/>\nclinching evidence, conviction and sentence of the appellant is<br \/>\nnot sustainable under the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the<br \/>\nState\/respondent supported the judgment impugned.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties,  I<br \/>\nhave examined the material available on record. As regards  the<br \/>\nage  of the appellant is concerned, present offence took  place<br \/>\non  27.4.2004 and according to inquiry conducted by  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt  relating to age of the appellant, his date of birth  was<br \/>\nnoticed  as  15.3.85 and at the time of incident  he  was  aged<br \/>\nabout  more  than 18 years. The finding has not been challenged<br \/>\nby the appellant and it reached into finality.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   The appellant was married with deceased Prema Bai in  the<br \/>\nyear  2003  and  she  died within 7 years of  her  marriage  on<br \/>\n27.4.2004  as a result of hanging in the house of the appellant<br \/>\nin   abnormal   circumstances  is   not   disputed,   otherwise<br \/>\nestablished  by  the  statement  of   Smt.Harihar  Bai  (PW-1),<br \/>\nKu.Manjulata (PW-2), G.S.Bhaskar (PW-3), Malik Ram Tandon  (PW-\n<\/p>\n<p>4),  merg intimation (Exs.P\/6 and 8), F.I.R. (Ex.P\/12), inquest<br \/>\nreport  (Ex.P\/4), statement of Dr.R.K.Divya (PW-13) and autopsy<br \/>\nreport (Ex.P\/5). On 27.4.2004 the deceased committed suicide by<br \/>\nhanging  herself and she died as a result of hanging. Cause  of<br \/>\ndeath was due to asphyxia.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   The  present  appellant  has taken  specific  defence  of<br \/>\nmisbehavior  and   insanity  of the  deceased  and  has  lodged<br \/>\nwritten  report  (Ex.D\/2)  which is  admitted  by  the  defence<br \/>\nwitness  A.Tirki (DW-7) that he has received written report  on<br \/>\n3.10.2003  and also admitted that he has directed the appellant<br \/>\nfor  treatment of his wife but he has not taken any  action  on<br \/>\nthe basis of such report. Ex.D\/2 is written report. But, it  is<br \/>\na  matter  of  surprise that no action has been  taken  by  the<br \/>\npolice even they have not care to record Rojnamcha of the same.<br \/>\nIn  Ex.D\/2  the  appellant  has not  mentioned  that  even  the<br \/>\ndeceased refused to maintain matrimonial relation. The  present<br \/>\nappellant   has  examined  himself  as  defence   witness   and<br \/>\nspecifically  deposed  that  as  a  result  of  resistance  and<br \/>\nmisbehavior  of  the  deceased, he has  not  maintain  physical<br \/>\nrelation   with   the  deceased.  Autopsy  was   conducted   by<br \/>\nDr.R.K.Divya  (PW-13) who has noticed that size of  uterus  was<br \/>\nnormal  and no external injury was found over the private  part<br \/>\nof  the  deceased  but nothing has been asked  by  the  defence<br \/>\nrelating to presence of hymen or anything which would show that<br \/>\nmarriage has not been consumed. It shows that the appellant has<br \/>\nnot  consumed  the marriage is admittedly false defence  though<br \/>\nprosecution  cannot take help of weakness of  defence  and  the<br \/>\nprosecution is required to prove its case beyond all shadow  of<br \/>\ndoubt and requires to stand on its own leg.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   Smt.Harihar Bai (PW-1) mother of the deceased has deposed<br \/>\nthat  just  after marriage the accused persons used  to  demand<br \/>\ncolour television and motorcycle and used to torture Prema  Bai<br \/>\nand  even they do not provide proper meal to her daughter. When<br \/>\nshe  came  back  to her maternal house after two  days  of  her<br \/>\nmarriage  then even she told to her mother that their  in-law&#8217;s<br \/>\nand  relatives used to quarrel with her and demands  television<br \/>\nand  motorcycle. She has also deposed that when she went to the<br \/>\nhouse  of  the  appellant  with her  daughter  then  they  also<br \/>\ndemanded colour television and motorcycle, then she called some<br \/>\npersons  of  the  Village Gumiya where the  appellant  and  her<br \/>\nrelatives were residing and narrated the incident to them.  She<br \/>\nhas  also deposed that before 20 to 25 days of the incident she<br \/>\ntook  the  deceased  to  her house for festival  and  again  on<br \/>\n25.4.2004  she  went along with deceased to the  house  of  the<br \/>\nappellant  where the appellant and his relatives have quarreled<br \/>\nwith  her  and again demanded motorcycle and colour  television<br \/>\nand  threat  her that if she will not provide colour television<br \/>\nand motorcycle then she will see dead body of her daughter. She<br \/>\nleft  the deceased in the house of the appellant and came  back<br \/>\nto  her house. On 27.4.2004, she came to know that her daughter<br \/>\nhad  committed  suicide. Ku. Manjulata  (PW-2)  sister  of  the<br \/>\ndeceased  has  also corroborated the statement  of  her  mother<br \/>\nSmt.Harihar  Bai  (PW-1).  G.S.Bhaskar  (PW-3)  brother-in-law,<br \/>\nMalik  Ram  Tandon  (PW-4), maternal  uncle  of  the  deceased,<br \/>\nGhasiram (PW-5), brother-in-law of the deceased, Phulsai (PW-7)<br \/>\ngrandfather  of the deceased, Manharan Singh (PW-8) grandmother<br \/>\nof the deceased and  Jagmohan (PW-9) neighbour of father of the<br \/>\ndeceased  have deposed that the appellant, father,  mother  and<br \/>\nother relatives used to demand motorcycle, television and other<br \/>\narticles  and  used  to  commit cruelty and  torture  upon  the<br \/>\ndeceased. The appellant has examined himself as defence witness<br \/>\nbut  he has admitted that on 25.4.2004 his wife was not present<br \/>\nin his house and she was at her mother house. The other defence<br \/>\nwitnesses have deposed that Bharat was present at the  time  of<br \/>\nincident and Bharat who is son-in-law of the co-accused  Daulat<br \/>\nRam did not frequently visit the house of Daulat Ram. He is not<br \/>\nconnected anything with the incident. Other witnesses have also<br \/>\ndeposed  that  according  to  their  information,  the  accused<br \/>\npersons have not demanded dowry but in their cross-examination,<br \/>\nthey were having no knowledge about the incident.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  In the present case, the deceased was died within one year<br \/>\nof  her marriage in abnormal circumstances in the house of  the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  Learned counsel for the appellant also argued and attacked<br \/>\nupon the propriety of the investigation on the ground that  the<br \/>\npresent   investigating   officer  Emil   Lakda   (PW-20)   has<br \/>\nspecifically  deposed  that  he has  started  investigation  on<br \/>\n30.4.2004 and registered the offence on 29.4.2004 vide Ex.P\/12.<br \/>\nHe  has also admitted that on 29.4.2004 or 30.4.2004, relatives<br \/>\nof  the  deceased have not lodged any report and also  admitted<br \/>\nthat he used to investigate the offence in accordance with law.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel further argued that the investigating  officer<br \/>\nrecorded the statements of the witnesses whose residence are 50<br \/>\nto  100  km. away from police chowki. He has admitted in para-4<br \/>\nof  his  evidence that he has recorded the statements at police<br \/>\nchowki Hardi Bazaar.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.   Virtually  defence has tried to show that alleged  F.I.R.<br \/>\n(Ex.P\/12) has been lodged on 30.4.2004, then how it is possible<br \/>\nfor  the investigating officer to record the statements of  the<br \/>\nwitnesses  under Section 161 of the Code on 29.4.2004.  Present<br \/>\nF.I.R. (Ex.P\/12) is based on the F.I.R. registered under 0\/2004<br \/>\nby  the  investigating officer on 29.4.2004  and  on  29.4.2004<br \/>\nafter  recording  the  F.I.R.  the  investigating  officer  has<br \/>\nrecorded  the  statements of the witnesses.  The  investigating<br \/>\nofficer has not committed any illegality or any departure  from<br \/>\nthe  law or rules when all the witnesses were present at police<br \/>\nchowki  Hardi  Bazaar.  The  investigating  officer  was  under<br \/>\nobligation  to record the statements of the witnesses  on  same<br \/>\nday which he has done.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.   In the present case, in order to establish the charge  of<br \/>\nSection  304-B  of  the Indian Penal Code, the  prosecution  is<br \/>\nrequired to prove the demand of dowry `soon before the death of<br \/>\nPushpa  Bai&#8217;.  Pushpa  Bai died on 27.4.2004  as  a  result  of<br \/>\nhanging in the house of the present appellant who is husband of<br \/>\nthe  deceased within one year of her marriage. Smt.Harihar  Bai<br \/>\n(PW-1) mother of the deceased has specifically stated in para-6<br \/>\nof  her  evidence that just before two days the  deceased  came<br \/>\nback  to  the house of the appellant where they threatened  the<br \/>\ndeceased and her mother in connection with demand of dowry  and<br \/>\nshe committed suicide within two days.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.   In  order to prove demand of dowry soon before her death,<br \/>\nthere  must  be  nexus  between demand  of  dowry  and  alleged<br \/>\ncommission  of suicide of the deceased. In the matter  of  Prem<br \/>\nKunwar v. State of Rajasthan1, the Apex Court has held that for<br \/>\nraising a presumption of dowry death under section 113-B of the<br \/>\nEvidence Act there must be proximity and live-link between  the<br \/>\neffect  of  cruelty  based on dowry demand  and  the  concerned<br \/>\ndeath. Para 12 of the said judgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;12.  A  conjoint reading of Section 113-B of  the<br \/>\n          Evidence  Act  and Section 304-B, IPC  shows  that<br \/>\n          there  must  be material to show that soon  before<br \/>\n          her  death the victim was subjected to cruelty  or<br \/>\n          harassment.  Prosecution  has  to  rule  out   the<br \/>\n          possibility of a natural or accidental death so as<br \/>\n          to  bring  it  within the purview  of  the  `death<br \/>\n          occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances&#8217;.<br \/>\n          The  expression  `soon before&#8217;  is  very  relevant<br \/>\n          where  Section  113-B  of  the  Evidence  Act  and<br \/>\n          Section  304-B,  IPC  are  pressed  into  service.<br \/>\n          Prosecution  is obliged to show that  soon  before<br \/>\n          the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and<br \/>\n          only  in  that case presumption operates. Evidence<br \/>\n          in that regard has to be led by prosecution. `Soon<br \/>\n          before&#8217; is a relative term and it would be  depend<br \/>\n          upon  circumstances of each case  and  no  strait-<br \/>\n          jacket  formula can be laid down as to what  would<br \/>\n          constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.<br \/>\n          It  would  be  hazardous  to  indicate  any  fixed<br \/>\n          period,  and  that brings in the importance  of  a<br \/>\n          proximity test both for the proof of an offence of<br \/>\n          dowry  death  as well as for raising a presumption<br \/>\n          under  Section  113-B  of the  Evidence  Act.  The<br \/>\n          expression  `soon before her death&#8217;  used  in  the<br \/>\n          substantive  Section 304-B, IPC and Section  113-B<br \/>\n          of  the  Evidence Act is present with the idea  of<br \/>\n          proximity  test.  No  definite  period  has   been<br \/>\n          indicted and the expression `soon before&#8217;  is  not<br \/>\n          defined.  A reference to expression `soon  before&#8217;<br \/>\n          used  in  Section  114, Illustration  (a)  of  the<br \/>\n          Evidence  Act  is relevant. It lays  down  that  a<br \/>\n          Court  may  presume  that a  man  who  is  in  the<br \/>\n          possession  of  goods `soon after&#8217; the  theft,  is<br \/>\n          either the thief or has received the goods knowing<br \/>\n          them  to be stolen, unless he can account for  his<br \/>\n          possession. The determination of the period  which<br \/>\n          can come within the term `soon before&#8217; is left  to<br \/>\n          be  determined by the Courts, depending upon facts<br \/>\n          and  circumstances of each case. Suffice, however,<br \/>\n          to  indicate  that  the expression  `soon  before&#8217;<br \/>\n          would normally imply that the interval should  not<br \/>\n          be   much   between  the  concerned   cruelty   or<br \/>\n          harassment  and the death in question. There  must<br \/>\n          be  existence of a proximate and live-link between<br \/>\n          the  effect  of cruelty based on dowry demand  and<br \/>\n          the  concerned  death.  If  alleged  incident   of<br \/>\n          cruelty  is  remote in time and has  become  stale<br \/>\n          enough  not to disturb mental equilibrium  of  the<br \/>\n          woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>19.   In the present case statements of the witnesses supported<br \/>\nby the prompt lodged F.I.R. (Ex.P\/12) is sufficient for drawing<br \/>\ninference   that  the  accused  has  demanded  motorcycle   and<br \/>\ncommitted cruelty and torture upon the deceased even just after<br \/>\ntwo  days  before the death of the deceased and as a result  of<br \/>\nsuch  cruelty and torture, no option except to end of her  life<br \/>\nwas  left  to the deceased and deceased has ended her  life  by<br \/>\ncommitting  suicide. The alleged act of torture and cruelty  is<br \/>\nindependently  punishable offence under Section  498-A  of  the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.   After  appreciating  the evidence  available  on  record,<br \/>\nlearned  Court  below  has acquitted other  co-accused  on  the<br \/>\nground  that  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution  was  not<br \/>\nsufficient to warrant conviction against them and has convicted<br \/>\nand   sentenced   the  present  appellant  as   aforementioned.<br \/>\nConviction  and sentence of the appellant is based on  credible<br \/>\nand  clinching evidence sustainable under the law. As a  result<br \/>\nof  cruelty, one young woman i.e. wife has ended her life.  The<br \/>\nsentence  awarded by the Court below is neither  excessive  nor<br \/>\nunjust.  I  do  not  find any illegality or  infirmity  in  the<br \/>\njudgment impugned.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.    For the foregoing reasons, the appeal has no merit, same<br \/>\nis liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2005 Santoshdhari &#8230;Petitioners Versus The State of Chhattisgarh &#8230;Respondents (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) ! Mr.K.A.Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-28T14:36:19+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\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-28T14:36:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2822,\"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\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-28T14:36:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 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":"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-28T14:36:19+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\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-28T14:36:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009"},"wordCount":2822,"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\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009","name":"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-28T14:36:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santoshdhari-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santoshdhari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 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\/217517","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=217517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}