{"id":21901,"date":"1997-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997"},"modified":"2018-12-29T15:19:53","modified_gmt":"2018-12-29T09:49:53","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n
Bench: M.M. Punchhi, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUDAI SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/12\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nM.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tTHE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Punchhi
\n\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan
\nAnoop G.Choudhary,  Prashant Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Adv. for
\nthe appellant
\nS.K. Bhattacharya,  Pradeep Kumar,  P.K.Jain, Advs.  for the
\nRespondent
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nSrinivasan, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The state\tof Madhya  Pradesh has preferred this appeal
\nagainst the  judgment  of  the\tHigh  Court  acquitting\t the
\nrespondent by  reversing the  judgment of the III Additional
\nSessions Judge,\t  Behind  whereby  he  was  convicted  under
\nSection 302  I.P.C. for committing a string of three murders
\nand Section  307 I.P.C.\t for attempting\t to commit  a fourth
\nmurder.\t  Even here,  we are constrained to observe that the
\nHigh Court has chosen to reject the natural evidence of eye-
\nwitnesses on  the basis\t of unwarranted\t conjectures of eye-
\nwitnesses  on  the  basis  of  unwarranted  conjectures\t and
\nsurmises.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The undisputed  facts are\tthat three women Ram Piyari,
\nMathura and  Bhagwati were  shot dead  and Deya\t daughter of
\nMathura got  injured by gun shots in the night of 6.4.79 and
\nthe  respondent\t remained  absconding  till  he\t surrendered
\nhimself on  25.10.81.\tThe parties  belong to\tthe  village
\nKakora within the jurisdiction of Lahar Police Station which
\nis at a distance of about nine kilo metres.  The case of the
\nprosecution is\tsupported by the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, eye
\nwitnesses for  the murder  of Ram  Piyari, PWs\t5 and 6, eye
\nwitnesses for  the murder  of Mathura  and PW 4, eye witness
\nfor the\t murder of Bhagwati. PW 6 is the daughter of Mathura
\nand she\t herself  received  injuries  by  gun  shots.\t The
\noccurrence was\tbetween 8  and 9  P.M. on  6.4.79 and it was
\nreported in  the police\t station around 10.00 A.M., the next
\nday.\n<\/p>\n
3.   According to  PW 1\t the  husband  of  Ra,\tPiyari,\t the
\nrespondent and\this brother Bachoo Singh came with two other
\npersons, when  himself and  his younger brother Devi Lal (PW\n<\/p>\n
2) were sitting on the Chabutra after having dinner at about
\n8 O’clock  in front  of\t their\thouse.\tThe  respondent\t was
\ncarrying a  Mark-3 gun\tand his\t brother was having a lathi.
\nOne of the other persons had a mouser gun and the fourth had
\na lathi.   The\trespondent fired  at PW\t 1 and PW 2 twice by
\nmissed them.   Both jumped over the wall of the Chabutra and
\nhid behind  the same.\tOn hearing the sound of the gun-shot
\nRam Piyari  came out  of the  house and was going back after
\nshutting the  door when\t the respondent fired one shot which
\nhit her.    She\t fell  down  dead  inside  the\tdoor.\t The
\nrespondent and\this companions\twent towards house of Chhote
\nPW 4.  PW 2  has also spoken on the same lines as PW 1. PW 3
\nis the\twife of PW 2.  According to her she was working with
\nRam Piyari  in the  kitchen and\t on hearing  the  sound\t Ram
\nPiyari came  out and she was hot dead when she was trying to
\ngo back\t after closing\tthe door.  The evidence given by the
\naforesaid three\t witnesses has\tto been\t shaken in the cross
\nexamination. Their  presence at\t the place  of occurrence is
\nquite natural  and the\tslight differences  in the narration
\nare negligible.\t  PW  11 Dr.  Srivastava has  described\t the
\ninjury on the body   of Ram Piyari as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “There was\t a wound  in the back of
\n     Ram  Piyari   and\twound\tof   gun
\n     cartridge\t entrance    and    that
\n     cartridge breaking Diaphram, liver,
\n     pericardium, heart\t and  left  lung
\n     and  breaking  6th\t and  7th  lungs
\n     (paslis) came  out from  the  chest
\n     and there\twas mark of one external
\n     injury (wound).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     He has  deposed that  the death  was caused by the said
\nanti morterm injury and the bleeding from the said injury as
\nell s  shock.\tThe trial  court has  accepted the aforesaid
\nevidence and  concluded that  Ram Piyari was murdered by the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The High  Court has, however, adopted a curious process
\nof reasoning.\tThe  High Court has observed that ‘defection
\nof the\tfire was  below to  upwards’ and  ‘any\tmale  killer
\nshooting from a standing posture at a female victim – former
\npresumably taller  than the latter – could not have the shot
\nvictim from  below upwards’. We are unable to appreciate how
\nthe court could mebark upon such a kind of imaginary surmise
\nwithout any  foundation therefor  in the  evidence.   it  is
\npointed out  by the  High Court itself that PW 1 and PW 2 do
\nnot speak  about the posture taken by the respondent to fire
\nat Ram\tPiyari. We find that no question has been put to any
\nwitness by  the cross examining counsel on that matter.\t The
\ndoctor has  not also been questioned about ‘defection of the
\nfire’.\t Nothing has also been brought on record whether the
\nvictim\twas   shorter  than   the  respondent.\t   In\tsuch
\ncircumstances there  was  no  justification  or\t warrant  to
\ninvoke\tthe  aid  of  such  unsustainable  presumptions\t and
\nformulate a theory on the strength thereof.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Another reason  given by  the High Court is that in the
\nFirst  Information  Report  PW\t1  has\tnot  said  that\t the
\nrespondent fired  the first two shots.\tit is pointed out by
\nthe  learned   counsel\tfor  the  appellant  that  the\tsaid
\nreasoning is factually erroneous as the F.I.R. contains such
\na statement.   The High Court has also observed that if PW 1
\nand PW\t2 had  hidden themselves  behind the  Chabutra, they
\ncould not  have seen  Ram Piyari  walking from\tthe  kitchen
\ninside the  house to  the door.\t It is further observed that
\nthe two\t witnesses would  immediately have  run\t away  under
\ncover of  the Chabutra\tas there  was a\t risk of their being
\npicked up  by the respondent if he came around the Chabutra.
\nComments have  also been  made by the High Court that PW 12,
\nthe Investigation  Officer failed  to seize  the door of the
\nhouse to  demonstrate that  there was  enough space  for the
\npassing of a bullet or that there was any damage to the door
\nby gun\tshot.\tIt has also been observed that PW 12 has not
\nstated on  oath whether\t he had\t collected empty  cartridges
\nnear the house.\t None of the comments made by the High court
\nis appropriate.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The reasoning  of the  High Court\tis palpably wrong as
\nthe evidence  of PWs  1 to 3 presents a clear picture of the
\noccurrence.   In the  absence of any suggestion in the cross
\nexamination of\tthe witnesses,\tthe   evidence\tcan  not  be
\nrejected as  not acceptable.   The circumstances referred to
\nby the\tHigh Court  do not impinge upon the acceptability of
\nthe version  given by  PWs 1  to 3. We do not agree with the
\nreasoning of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The second incident is that of killing of Mathura, wife
\nof PW  5 and  mother of\t Pw 6.\t The  injury on\t her body is
\ndescribed by Pw 11 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “the woman\t Mathurabai had wound on
\n     the left  side of her arm and below
\n     that was  gun would  of entrance in
\n     her chest\twhich was  deep in  left
\n     plura,\tlungs,\t   peraicardium,
\n     medistenum and  passing through the
\n     hear that cartridge stopped between
\n     the heart\tand below the fifth lung
\n     bone from where it was taken out.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Even PW 1 has stated that after shooting down his wife,
\nthe respondent\tand his companions went towards the house of
\nChhote (PW  5).\t  The evidence\tof PW  6 is  very clear\t and
\nunimpeachable.\t She was  by the side of her mother when the
\nrespondent fired.  She herself got injured by two gun shorts
\nthough she  escaped death.   She  had  seen  the  respondent
\nfiring from  a close distance.\tIn the chief examination she
\nhas stated that the moon light was just then coming out when
\nthe incident  occurred.\t  In the  cross examination  she had
\nstated that  there was\tno moon\t light and  torch light\t was
\nthere.\tMuch is made of this to disbelieve her version.\t The
\ntrial court  has described  it as  a mistake and opined that
\nnothing turns  on it.\tThe  High Court\t has, however, given
\ngreat  importance  to  the  same  in  order  to\t reject\t her
\nevidence.   We are  unable to agree with the High Court.  In
\nfat, there is no discrepancy between the two statements.  In
\nthe chief  examination she  has only  stated that moon light
\nwas just  coming out.  In the cross examination the emphasis
\nwas on\tthe sufficiency\t of the\t light at  that place.\t  In
\nanswer to  such a  question she\t had replied  that there was
\ntorch light and no moon light.\tIt can not therefore be said
\nthat her  entire deposition  is not credit worthy. A perusal
\nfor the\t evidence alongwith that of her father PW 5 taken in
\nconjuction with\t the fact that PW 6 got injured by gun shots
\nshows that  it was  the respondent who shot dead Mathura and
\ninjured Pw 6.  The High Court has commented upon the matters
\nwhich are  not in evidence.  The reasoning of the High Court
\nborders on perversity.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The next  incident is the killing of Bhagwati,  wife of
\nPW 4.  the victim  was the aunt of the respondent.  it is in
\nevidence that she left her husband and began to live with PW
\n4 and therefore the respondent and the members of his Family
\nwere entmical to her.  According to the evidence of PW 4 the
\nrespondent fired twice.\t Once shot hit hor hear the eyes and
\nthe second  hit her behind the ear and head.  It is also his
\ndeposition that\t the brother  of the respondent hit her with
\nlathi on  the head.   The injury on her body is described by
\nPW 11 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “On the  forehead of woman Bhagwati
\n     one wound\tof entrance  of the  gun
\n     firing was\t at the\t upside of  Nose
\n     which breaking  temporal  bone  and
\n     marking an\t outgoing wound\t on  the
\n     face came out.  Apart from this one
\n     more gun  wound was  found\t on  the
\n     left side of head which was only to
\n     the depth\tof skin\t and it appeared
\n     that the  gun fire\t wont out  whole
\n     touching that part of the body”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Here again,  the doctor  has described the death as due
\nto murder.   No\t doubt, the  only witnesses  who has  spoken
\nabout the killing of Bhagwati is PW 4 but we do not find any
\nreason to  reject his  evidence as  unworthy of\t acceptance.
\nThe High  court thus rejected the evidence of Pw 4 as a made
\nup story and  implausible as the respondent did not go after
\nhim when  he did  himself behind  the wall and took shelter.
\nComment is made by the High Court hat there is no acceptable
\nevidence that  any cartridges  or spent\t bullets were  found
\ninside the  house.  We do not find any justification for the
\nobservation made  by the  High Court that the sole testimony
\nof PW 4 ‘most unconvincing’. At that time of the high in the
\nvillage it  is not  possible  to  expert  other\t independent
\npersons to  be at  the place  of occurrence  to witness\t the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
9.   A general\tcomment is  made by  learned counsel for the
\nrespondent that\t the evidence  adduced by the prosecution is
\nperfunctory and\t slip shod.  It is also argued that no other
\nindependent witnesses  have been  examined in support of the
\nprosecution and\t all the witnesses are interested.  There is
\nno merit in either o the contentions.  The depositions given
\nby the\twitnesses are  cogent and  natural .  As pointed out
\nalready the  occurrence was between 8 to 9 P.M. in the night
\nand one\t can not  expect other\tvillagers to  have assembled
\nalready in  the houses of the deceased.\t There is nothing on
\nrecord to  show that the witnesses are in any way interested
\nin falsely  implicating the  accused.\t The attempt made by
\nthe respondent\tby examining  DW 1  is\tto  show  that\tsome
\nscoundrels had\tcome  to  the  village\tand  shot  dead\t the
\naforesaid women\t and fled  away.   There  is  absolutely  no
\nsupport for the said version.  If there was any truth in the
\nsame, there  is no  explanation for  the respondent  and his
\nbrother remaining  absconding for  quite a  long time.\tDW 1
\nhas stated  in the  Chief examination that the respondent is
\nhis nephew.   In the cross examination he has deposed to the
\ncontrary that the respondent is not of his caste and that he
\nis a  Harijan.\tIt is also argued that the First Information
\nReport was given to the Police 14 hours after the occurrence
\nand there  is no  explanation for such a delay.\t There is no
\nmerit in  this contention.   The occurrence was in the night
\ntime and  the police  station was  about 9  kilometers away.
\nThere were  three deaths and the killers had deadly weapons.
\nThe villagers  would not  have dared  to go out in the night
\ntime.\tIn the circumstances of the case, it can not be said
\nthat there  was undue  delay on the part of the complainants
\nto inform the police. It should be noted that the respondent
\nand his\t brother were  named in\t the F.I.R. The respondent’s
\nbrother were  named in\tthe F.I.R.  The respondent’s brother
\nis stated  to have  died in  an encounter.   The  other\t two
\nunnamed persons\t were not  traceable.\tOn Balwant Singh was
\ncharged alongwith  the respondent, by the prosecution but he
\nwas later discharged.\n<\/p>\n
10.  We have  no doubt\twhatever that the evidence on record
\nis sufficient  to  prove  beyond  doubt\t the  guilt  of\t the
\nrespondent.   He is not only quilty of murder of three women
\nbut also  of attempt to kill PW.6.  Hence, the conviction of
\nthe respondent\tby the\ttrial court  is correct and the High
\nCourt is  in the  error in  setting aside  the\tsame.\t The
\nsentences awarded  by the  trial court\tare appropriate.  In
\nthe result,  the judgment  of the  High Court  is set aside.
\nThe judgement  and order  of the  IIIrd Additional  Sessions
\nJudge, Behind  (M.P.) are restored.  The bail granted to the
\nrespondent stands cancelled.  He shall be taken into custody
\nforthwith to undergo the sentence<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 Author: Srinivasan Bench: M.M. Punchhi, M. Srinivasan PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: UDAI SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/1997 BENCH: M.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 1997 Present: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Punchhi Hon’ble Mr.Justice […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 - 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-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-29T09:49:53+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=\"12 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-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-29T09:49:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2317,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-29T09:49:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997\"}]},{\"@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 Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 - 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-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-29T09:49:53+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-29T09:49:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997"},"wordCount":2317,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-29T09:49:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-udai-singh-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udai Singh on 1 December, 1997"}]},{"@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\/21901","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=21901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}