{"id":218242,"date":"2010-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-12T21:14:50","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T15:44:50","slug":"state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 11 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs The on 11 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/352\/2009\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 352 of 2009\n \n\n===============================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJUVANSINH\nJILUBHA VAGHELA & 2 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n===============================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR. DC SEJPAL\nAPP for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nOpponent(s) : 1 - 3. \n===============================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/05\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
1.0\tThe
\npresent appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated
\n06.12.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Gandhidham-Kutchch in
\nSpecial Case No.39 of 2006 whereby the accused were acquitted of the
\ncharges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n
2.0\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tOn
\n05.03.2006 at about 20.00 hrs., at Village: Gedi while complainant
\nBhoja Joga was sitting at the chawk of Pirna Otlavala for watching
\nplay the respondents-accused came there and told him  Ahithi Uthi
\nJav Amare Ahi Besvu Chhe. . The respondents-accused also gave
\nfilthy abuses to the complainant against her mother and sister and
\nalso against his Caste. The respondent-accused Jivubhai inflicted
\nDhariya blow on him and caused injuries to him.  Thus the
\nrespondents-accused with the abettment of each other had quarreled
\nwith the complainant and other witnesses. Therefore, a complaint was
\nlodged befreo Rapar Police Station, and same is registered as
\nI-C.R.No. 22 of 2006 against the accused for the offence punishable
\nunder Sections 323,324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with
\nSection 3(1)(10) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention
\nof Atrocity) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Atrocity
\nAct’).\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tNecessary
\ninvestigation was carried out and statements of  witnesses were
\nrecorded. Ultimately, chargesheet was filed against the respondents
\nbefore the court of  learned  Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rapar.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tThereafter,
\nas the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions    Court, the
\nsame was committed to the Court of learned Special  Judge,
\nGandhidham-Kutchch under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was numbered
\nas Special Case No. 39 of 2006. The trial was initiated against the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tTo
\nprove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the
\nfollowing witnesses:\n<\/p>\n
P.W.1
\nNagabhai Raghabhai Harijan   Exh.16<\/p>\n
P.W.2
\nPachan Aanadabhai Parmar-Exh. 18<\/p>\n
P.W.3\tHari
\nJakhara Manka-Exh. 19<\/p>\n
P.W.4\tVardhaji
\nRavatji Luhar- Exh. 31<\/p>\n
P.W.5\tDipak
\nRevashankar Sharma-Exh. 32<\/p>\n
P.W.\n<\/p>\n
6\tAnilkumar Jentilal Joshi-Exh. 34<\/p>\n
P.W.7\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Jonwal Chhoteram Chhangaram-Exh. 39<\/p>\n
P.W.8\tJayantilal
\nShantilal Parmar- Exh. 41<\/p>\n
P.W.\n<\/p>\n
9\tBhoja Joga-Exh.43<\/p>\n
P.W.10\tKhimji
\nMeghji Chauhan-Exh. 47<\/p>\n
P.W.\n<\/p>\n
11\tMohan Hajabhai Parmar-Exh. 50<\/p>\n
P.W.12\tDevshi
\nHaribhai Parmar-Exh. 51<\/p>\n
P.W.13\tNaransinh
\nMansinh Barad-Exh. 53<\/p>\n
2.5\tIn
\norder to support the case, the prosecution has produced the following
\ndocuments:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tComplaint
\n  Exh.33<\/p>\n
[2]\tPanchnama
\nof the place of incident   Exh.17<\/p>\n
[3]\tArrest
\nPanchnama  Exh.20<\/p>\n
[4]\tTelephone
\nMessage   Exh.34<\/p>\n
[5]\tMedical
\nCertificate   Exh.40<\/p>\n
[6]\tCaste
\ncertificate-Exh.83<\/p>\n
2.6\tAt
\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under
\nsection 313 of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of
\nprosecution and the defence, the learned Special  Judge acquitted the
\nrespondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgement and
\norder dated  06.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.7\tBeing
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order
\npassed by the learned Special Judge the appellant State has preferred
\nthe present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3.0\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
D.C. Sejpal, learned APP contended that the judgement and order of
\nthe Special Judge is against the provisions of law; the Special Judge
\nhas not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and
\nlooking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the
\nprosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against
\nthe present respondents.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tLearned
\nAPP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire
\ndocumentary evidence. He submitted that the complainant and
\nprosecution witnesses were beaten and they were also given filthy
\nabuses against their caste. Prosecution Witness No.12 Devshi Haribhai
\nParmar at Exh.51 has fully supported the case of the prosecution as
\nnarrated by the complainant in the complaint. He deposed that there
\nwas quarrel between the complainant and the respondents-accused. The
\ncomplainant and Mohan Hajabhai Parmar were given Dhariya blow. They
\nwere taken to Rambaug Hospital for treatment. There were eight
\nstitches in the head of the complainant. Learned APP further
\nsubmitted that there was no reason for the learned Judge to
\ndisbelieve the prosecution case and to acquit the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
4.0\tAt
\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would
\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an
\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very
\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In
\nthe case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &
\nAnr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated
\nabout the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of
\nacquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an
\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional
\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a
\njudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the
\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the
\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
\nrecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tFurther,
\nin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
\n(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
\nprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
 42.\tFrom
\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general
\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tAn
\nappellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider
\nthe evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tThe
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the
\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tVarious
\nexpressions, such as,  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good
\nand sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,
\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes , etc. are not
\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an
\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature
\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an
\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power
\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
[4]\tAn
\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
\ncourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
\nstrengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tIf
\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
\non record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\tThus,
\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even
\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\nfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
4.3\tEven
\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa
\nV. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75, the
\nCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In
\npara 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 16.\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the
\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal
\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement
\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a
\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed
\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.
\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis
\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused
\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n
4.4\tSimilar
\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of
\nState of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in
\n2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state
\nof MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this
\nCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
4.5\tIt
\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give
\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\nCourt in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in
\nAIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
 &
\nThis court has
\nobserved in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1
\nSCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate
\ncourt when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence
\nto repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons
\ngiven by the trial court expression of general agreement with the
\nreasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal,
\nwill ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n
4.6\tThus,
\nin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\tWe
\nhave gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial court.
\nWe have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by
\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned
\nAdvocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
5.1\tThe
\ntrial court after appreciation of the evidence found that the
\nProsecution Witness No. 11-Mohan Hajabhai Parmar did not support the
\ncase of the prosecution. In his cross-examination he stated that
\nthere was no occurrence of incident in his presence. Thus the
\nstatement of above mentioned witness is not trustworthy. Prosecution
\nWitness No. 12-Devshi Haribhai Parmar at Exh. 51 in his
\ncross-examination deposed that blow was not given to the complainant.
\nIt is also not true that respondents-accused were not given any
\nfilthy abuses. There is contradiction in the deposition of
\ncomplainant and Devshibhai regarding the time of play. Prosecution
\nWitness No.2 Panchan Aanandbhai Parmar at Exh.18, Prosecution Witness
\nNo.3-Hari Jakhara Manka at Exh. 19 and Prosecution Witness No.
\n4-Vardhaji Ravtaji Luhar at Exh. 31 are the panch witnesses but they
\ndid not support the panchnama. They had only admitted their
\nsignatures in the panchnama. The also deposed that panchnama was not
\nprepared in their presence. The trial Court also found that no
\nindependent witnesses were examined.\n<\/p>\n
5.2\tIn
\nthis fact situation the Special Court has found that there are
\nserious lacuna and contradictions in the prosecution case and the
\nprosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondents.
\nTherefore the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the
\naccused and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said
\nfinding.\n<\/p>\n
5.3\tThus,
\nfrom the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has
\nnot proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.Sejpal, learned APP
\nis not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of
\nthe matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by
\nsome manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the
\ntrial court has ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tIn
\nthe above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that
\nthe trial court was completely justified in acquitting the
\nrespondents of the charges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tWe
\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely
\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tWe
\nare, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court
\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the
\nappeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.0\tRecord
\nand Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(K.S.\n<\/p>\n
JHAVERI, J.)\t(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n
niru*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs The on 11 August, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/352\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 352 of 2009 =============================================== STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant(s) Versus JUVANSINH JILUBHA VAGHELA & 2 – Opponent(s) =============================================== Appearance […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-12T15:44:50+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 11 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T15:44:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2095,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T15:44:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 11 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-12T15:44:50+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 11 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T15:44:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010"},"wordCount":2095,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010","name":"State vs The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T15:44:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 11 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218242","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=218242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}