{"id":219646,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-17T17:34:19","modified_gmt":"2017-02-17T12:04:19","slug":"rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
                     Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 209 of 2005\n      Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.1.2005 and\n      27.1.2005<\/pre>\n
 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-VI,
\n      Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East in S.T. No. 240 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
       Rajesh Pandey                                         ...      ...      Appellant\n                                    Versus\n       The State of Jharkhand                                ...      ...      Respondent\n                                         -----\n      For the Appellant      : M\/s S.N. Rajgarhia & D.K. Chakravorthy, Advocates\n      For the State          : A.P.P.\n                                         ------\n                                    PRESENT\n\n                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY\n                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD\n\nBy Court :           The present appellant, Rajesh Pandey was put on trial along with three\n\n<\/pre>\n
             other accused persons for the charges under Sections 304B, 498A, 302, 201\/34 of the<\/p>\n
             Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-VI,<\/p>\n
             Jamshedpur, by his judgment dated 24.1.2005 convicted this appellant only for the<\/p>\n
             offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to<\/p>\n
             undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He<\/p>\n
             was awarded further R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the<\/p>\n
             Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to be run<\/p>\n
             concurrently. For the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
             Code, this appellant was acquitted. The other accused persons were acquitted from<\/p>\n
             all the charges. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by<\/p>\n
             the trial court by preferring this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             2.      The facts, in short, are that on Bali Pandey lodged a First Information<\/p>\n
             Report on 13.3.1999 with Sonari Police Station, alleging therein that his daughter<\/p>\n
             Meera Pandey was married to this appellant, Rajesh Pandey, on 8.12.1997. In the<\/p>\n
             marriage, as per the demand, dowry was given but in spite of that, his daughter was<\/p>\n
             being asked to bring more dowry from her parents and they used to torture her in<\/p>\n
             different ways due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On receipt of such<\/p>\n
             information, the informant went to the in-laws place of his daughter and then after<\/p>\n
             seeing her condition, he brought his daughter Meera Pandey back to Dhanbad. After
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
some time, the appellant again took his wife, Meera Pandey, back to Jamshedpur.<\/p>\n
The informant’s another daughter Radha used to visit the in-laws place of Meera<\/p>\n
Pandey (the deceased) and she was being informed by Meera Pandey about the<\/p>\n
atrocities being committed on her by her in-laws. Meera Pandey also sent a letter to<\/p>\n
the informant informing him that she was being badly treated by her in-laws and<\/p>\n
her husband who used to beat her after consuming liquor.\n<\/p>\n
            On 13.3.1999 at about 10 a.m., this appellant said to have informed the<\/p>\n
informant on telephone that his daughter Meera Pandey was no more. At this, the<\/p>\n
informant asked the appellant not to cremate her till he reaches, but the appellant<\/p>\n
did not respond and disconnected the telephone. The informant went to the in-laws<\/p>\n
place of her daughter at Jamshedpur along with his another son-in-law, but they<\/p>\n
found that last rites of his daughter Meera Pandey was already done and the dead<\/p>\n
body was thrown in the river. The police recovered the dead body of Meera Pandey<\/p>\n
from the river. The informant saw the dead body of his daughter Meera Pandey and<\/p>\n
found that there was some ligature mark on her neck and there were some injuries<\/p>\n
also on her person, which indicated that she was firstly done to death and,<\/p>\n
thereafter, her dead body was thrown in the river.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The police took up the investigation and, therefore, submitted charge-sheet<\/p>\n
against all the accused persons named in the FIR and, therefore, the case was<\/p>\n
committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed, which they pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty and, thereafter, the accused persons including the present appellant were put<\/p>\n
on trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.          In course of trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the charges,<\/p>\n
examined altogether 15 witnesses and also adduced some documentary evidences.<\/p>\n
5.          As per the Post Mortem Report (Ext. 9), it was found that blood stained<\/p>\n
fluid coming out from mouth and nose, nails blue, face highly congested, eyes<\/p>\n
swollen, highly congested with presence of petchial hemorrhage in the conjunctiva<\/p>\n
of both eyes. Tongue partially protruded and the following ante mortem injuries<\/p>\n
were found on the dead body :-\n<\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
             ” Ligature Mark – 13 c.m. x 3 to 4 c.m. on the front of the neck. The
\n               ligature mark is contused and abrogaled at places. On dissection it is
\n               lechery brown at places. The lungs are highly congested with
\n               presence of petechial hemorrhage. The ligature mark is present over
\n               the upper part of the neck internally the neck muscles are contused
\n               in an area of 5 x 3 c.m. in the right side of the neck middle part just
\n               below the ligature mark. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was<\/p>\n
strangulation and time elapsed since death was 24 to 48 hours. Though the doctor,<\/p>\n
who conducted the Post Mortem, was not examined by the prosecution, but the Post<\/p>\n
Mortem Report was brought on record and proved by an another doctor, P.W. 12,<\/p>\n
who was posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Science of<\/p>\n
M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur and was acquainted with the handwriting of<\/p>\n
Dr. Renu Bala, who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination.<\/p>\n
6.       The trial court, on the basis of the materials on record, acquitted the other<\/p>\n
three accused persons namely, Indradeo Pandey, Janki Devi and Ganesh Pandey,<\/p>\n
who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the<\/p>\n
deceased, from all the charges but found this appellant guilty and convicted him for<\/p>\n
the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him<\/p>\n
to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
further to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code. However, he was acquitted from the charges under Sections 304B and<\/p>\n
498A of Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenging<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts<\/p>\n
against this appellant and the trial court only on the basis of presumption,<\/p>\n
conjuncture and surmises has found this appellant guilty and as such the same is not<\/p>\n
sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
8.      Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of<\/p>\n
the record, we do find that the trial court having taken into consideration the<\/p>\n
evidences led by the prosecution did find that the prosecution has failed to establish<\/p>\n
the factum of demand of dowry and subjection to cruelty and as such acquitted the<\/p>\n
appellant and other accused persons for the charges under Sections 304B and 498A<\/p>\n
of Indian Penal Code and at the same time, the trial court also acquitted the other<\/p>\n
accused persons for the charges under Sections 302\/34 and 201\/34 of Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code, but the trial court on the same set of evidences found the appellant guilty for<\/p>\n
the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that<\/p>\n
there was unnatural death of the deceased for which no satisfactory explanation was<\/p>\n
put forth by the appellant to the family members of the deceased; and that the<\/p>\n
appellant did not take any step for saving life of his wife if she had committed<\/p>\n
suicide; and that there was motive for committing offence of murder, as the<\/p>\n
appellant was not happy with his wife, as she was not mentally sound.<\/p>\n
9.      Having gone through the evidences led by the prosecution, we do find that<\/p>\n
the prosecution sought to prove the charges by leading evidences that the deceased<\/p>\n
was strangulated to death in the house of the appellant but the prosecution has<\/p>\n
failed to assign any motive for committing murder of the deceased, though the trial<\/p>\n
court, on the basis of the statement made by the appellant in his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.C.P. that he was made to marry the deceased though she was not<\/p>\n
mentally fit, assumed that the appellant was not happy with the deceased, but the<\/p>\n
evidence led in this regard on behalf of the prosecution is quite otherwise, wherein<\/p>\n
P.W. 2 has testified that he, being a neighbour, never heard about any altercation<\/p>\n
being taken place in between the wife and husband. Nothing has been brought on<\/p>\n
record to establish that the relationship in between the wife and husband was not<\/p>\n
cordial. In that event, the trial court was not correct in assuming that there was a<\/p>\n
motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Further, we<\/p>\n
do find that the appellant had also informed to the parents of the deceased about the<\/p>\n
death of the deceased but that act of giving information which normally speaks
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
       about the innocence of the accused has back fired, as it was assumed by the court<\/p>\n
       that it was the appellant who gave information about the death of the deceased was<\/p>\n
       alone present in the house and was responsible for the offence alleged though the<\/p>\n
       court has itself recorded that the prosecution has not brought evidence with respect<\/p>\n
       to the persons who were living in the house and on that ground the trial court<\/p>\n
       acquitted the other accused but convicted the appellant on the same material which<\/p>\n
       was there against the other accused persons. In this respect, it be stated that it is true<\/p>\n
       that non-disclosure of any special knowledge of any factual aspect is taken to be<\/p>\n
       incriminating circumstances but in the instant case, it is never the case of the<\/p>\n
       prosecution that it was the appellant who was alone living in the house along with<\/p>\n
       the deceased and under these situations, the prosecution can never be said to have<\/p>\n
       proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we do find that nothing is there<\/p>\n
       to establish about the motive for committing the offence nor the prosecution has<\/p>\n
       been able to establish that it was the appellant who was alone in the house along<\/p>\n
       with the deceased and that the appellant had informed about the death of the<\/p>\n
       deceased to her family members and that as the other accused persons on the same<\/p>\n
       set of evidences have been acquitted, the appellant, in that circumstances as<\/p>\n
       aforesaid, deserves to have benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
       10.     Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is<\/p>\n
       hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.<\/p>\n
       Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any<\/p>\n
       other case.\n<\/p>\n
       11.     In the result, this appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  (Amareshwar Sahay, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                    (R.R. Prasad, J.)
\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated the 27\/01\/2009
\nN.A.F.R. \/AKT\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 209 of 2005 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.1.2005 and 27.1.2005 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-VI, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East in S.T. No. 240 of 2000. Rajesh Pandey … … Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-17T12:04:19+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-17T12:04:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1708,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-17T12:04:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 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":"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-17T12:04:19+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-17T12:04:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":1708,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009","name":"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-17T12:04:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-pandey-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 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\/219646","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=219646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219646\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}