{"id":226897,"date":"2004-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-29T01:42:38","modified_gmt":"2016-10-28T20:12:38","slug":"ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N Santosh Hegde, B P Singh.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  624 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nRamsewak & Ors.\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of M.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN Santosh Hegde & B P Singh.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants herein, who are 6 in number, and 6 others
\nwere accused of having caused the death of one Preetam Singh on
\n15.7.1980 at about 12.30 p.m. in village Bhadera which incident
\naccording to the prosecution, was witnessed by Babu Lal PW-1
\nand his father Man Singh PW-2 along with Karan Singh PW-6.
\nPW-2 was the elder brother of deceased Preetam Singh, PW-1
\nwas his nephew while PW-6 Karan Singh was the uncle of the
\ndeceased. Prosecution alleged that all the accused persons
\nincluding the appellants herein had enmity with the deceased on
\ndifferent grounds, hence on the date of the incident they formed
\nthemselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly
\nweapons like gun, farsa, lathi, barchhi, axe etc. and attacked the
\ndeceased while he was grazing his cattle in a field at village
\nBhadera, causing him multiple injuries consequent to which he
\ndied. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW-1 who
\nwitnessed the incident then went to the Police Station which was
\nsituated about 3 kms. away from the place of incident, and lodged
\na complaint which was registered as FIR Ex. P-1. Based on the
\nsaid complaint, the Police initiated investigation and came to the
\nspot of the incident and Ex. P-2, an inquest report was prepared
\nand the body was sent for post mortem examination. PW-9 the
\ndoctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead
\nbody found 7 external injuries on the body out of which injury
\nNos.5 and 7 were bruises while injuries 1 to 4 and 6 were incised
\nwounds; one such wound caused the left hand of the deceased to
\nsevere from the joint of the wrist while consequent to the other
\ninjuries the deceased suffered cut wounds on the right hand and
\non the left side of the head. The doctor had opined that the
\ninjuries were ante mortem and the deceased had died due to
\nshock resulting from the injuries suffered on the head and
\nhaemorrhage resulting from other injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\tOut of the 12 accused only 11 accused were sent up for trial
\nbefore the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, including the
\nappellants herein while the 12th accused according to the
\nprosecution, had absconded but came to be arrested subsequently
\nand his trial was separated and was found not guilty hence was
\nacquitted in the said separate trial which acquittal has become
\nfinal.\n<\/p>\n
          The trial court after examining the prosecution evidence
\ncame to the conclusion that the presence of PWs.1 and 2 at the
\nplace of incident was doubtful and PW-5 not having supported
\nthe prosecution case and noticing the contradiction between the
\nocular evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the medical evidence came
\nto the conclusion that the prosecution had not established its case
\nagainst the accused, and consequently acquitted all the 11
\naccused who were tried by the said court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn an appeal filed against the said judgment of acquittal by
\nthe State before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior
\nBench, the High Court accepting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2
\npartly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the acquittal of
\nA-1 Ram Sewak, A-4 Ranveer Singh, A-7 Mullu, A-8 Narayan
\nSingh, A-9 Mizaji Lal, A-10 Ram Swaroop and A-11 Mewa Lal
\nheld them guilty of offences punishable under sections 147, 302
\nread with section 149 and sentenced them to undergo
\nimprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 read with
\nsection 149 while no separate sentence was awarded for the
\noffence under section 147 IPC. It however dismissed the State
\nappeal in regard to other accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the trial
\ncourt on a proper appraisal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 rightly
\ncame to the conclusion that their presence at the time of the
\nincident was highly doubtful hence they could not have witnessed
\nthe incident and because of prior enmity, these accused persons
\nwere falsely implicated in the case after due deliberation. It is
\npointed out that though A-1 and A-2 are brothers, A-3 and A-10
\nwere brothers and A-5 and A-11 were brothers, others had no
\nrelationship with each other and none of them had any common
\nenmity with the deceased, therefore, the trial court justly came to
\nthe conclusion that the prosecution had roped in all such persons
\nwho had some sort of enmity against the deceased as accused in
\nthis case at the instance of PWs.1 and 2. It was further contended
\nthat the trial court also noticed the fact that the FIR in this case
\nhad come into existence at the place of alleged incident after due
\ndeliberations and not at the Police Station, as stated by PW-1.
\nLearned counsel for the appellants also contended that the
\nmedical evidence did not tally with the ocular evidence therefore
\nthe trial court was justified in acquitting the accused. He
\ncontended that the High Court on the same set of facts and on re-
\nappreciation of the evidence without properly noticing the
\ncontradiction in the ocular evidence has erroneously convicted
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the respondent however supported
\nthe judgment of the High Court by contending that there was no
\nreason why the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 should be rejected. It
\nwas his argument that the High Court as a first court of appeal
\nhad a duty to reconsider the evidence and correct the error
\ncommitted by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\tThere was some dispute between the deceased and some of
\nthe accused in regard to the lands which were allotted to the
\ndeceased by the Government while other accused and the
\ndeceased had some other dispute which was not common because
\nof which the prosecution alleges that these accused persons
\ntogether formed an unlawful assembly on 15.7.1980 and
\ncommitted the murder of deceased Preetam Singh.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the prosecution case that on the fateful day Preetam
\nSingh had taken the cattle for grazing to village Bhadera which is
\nin a forest area at about 7 a.m. It is the further case of the
\nprosecution that at about 10 a.m. PW-1 the nephew of the
\ndeceased took the lunch for the deceased to the field where
\ndeceased was grazing the cattle and gave him the food. PW-1 in
\nthe complaint states that after giving food he went to village
\nItayali to call one Moti Ram Kachhi which village was about a
\nmile away from the place of the incident and having gone there
\nand having failed to meet him, he returned to Bhadera, the place
\nwhere the deceased was grazing his cattle at about 12 noon. On
\nhis way to Bhadera, it is alleged that he saw 12 accused persons
\narmed with deadly weapons walking towards the place where his
\nuncle was grazing the cattle which was about 100 yards from the
\nplace from where he saw these accused persons. PW-1 then states
\nthat on being apprehensive of the possible danger he stayed back
\nand hid behind a tree and noticed these accused persons attack
\nPreetam Singh. He in his evidence graphically describes the
\nnature of attack on his uncle. He stated that Bhure Singh asked
\nothers to kill Preetam Singh then A-4 Ranveer Singh gave a farsa
\nblow on the head, A-6 Rajendra Singh also assaulted on the head
\nof Preetam Singh when the latter fell down. Bhure Singh then
\npierced the left thigh of the deceased with a Barchhi, A-11
\nMewalal severed  the left  hand with a farsa, A-7 Mullu Singh
\ngave a farsa blow  on the right hand  and all the accused persons
\ncaused injuries to Preetam Singh with their respective weapons
\nand thereafter they went away towards the village, leaving behind
\nthe dead body. After the departure of the assailants, PW-1 went
\nnear his uncle and found him to be dead. This witness also says
\nthat during the incident he noticed his father PW-2 Man Singh
\nand PW-6 Karan Singh witnessing the incident. He then states
\nthat he went to the Police Station and lodged a written complaint
\nand returned to the place of incident with the Police.
\n\tPW-2 Man Singh, father of PW-1 in his evidence stated that
\nin the morning of 15.7.1980 he went to the temple for the darshan
\nof Hanumanji situated in village Dadurua and while returning to
\nthe village from the temple  he came on a road which leads to
\nvillage Bhadera where his brother Preetam Singh was grazing the
\ncattle. He enquired from Preetam Singh about his having had his
\nlunch and thereafter he proceeded further where he met PW-6 his
\nuncle who was also grazing the cattle. He says that he stayed
\nthere with PW-6 smoking a bidi. Meanwhile, he saw all the
\naccused persons armed with deadly weapons going towards the
\nplace where the deceased was grazing his cattle and started
\nattacking the deceased. He in the course of his evidence stated
\nthat he and PW-6 ran to the place of attack and asked the accused
\npersons not to beat but they did not listen. He further states that
\nafter committing the murder the accused persons went away from
\nthe place of incident and by that time his brother Preetam Singh
\nhad died. He then says that at that point of time PW-1 arrived
\nthere and when asked PW-1 told him that he being scared was
\nhiding behind a tree and had noticed the incident and thereafter
\nPW-1 went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint and
\nreturned to the place of incident with the Inspector and some
\npolicemen. He then stated that the Inspector then did ‘likha padi’
\non the spot and sent the dead body to the hospital. During the
\ncourse of his cross examination it was elicited that when he went
\nto the temple he did not know that his brother would be going to
\nBhadera village for grazing cattle and from his village to go to the
\ntemple there were two routes; one which would go via the field
\nwhere the deceased was grazing his cattle which was a forest area
\nand the other was a route going straight to Dadurua where the
\ntemple is situated but this route does not go near the village
\nBhadera. He also stated that there was bus service from his
\nvillage to Dadurua. When he was asked why he chose to come
\nvia the place of incident particularly when he had taken a
\ndifferent route to go to the temple, he had no specific answer for
\nthe same except saying that he chose to come that way.
\n\tPW-6, the uncle of PW-2 and the deceased did not support
\nthe prosecution case at all and denied that he ever witnessed the
\nincident or that he met PW-2 at the time of the alleged incident.
\nTherefore, the prosecution case primarily rests on the evidence of
\nPWs.1 and 2. The trial court in its judgment held that PWs.1 and
\n2 were chance witnesses because it was not normal for either of
\nthem to be present at the time and place of the incident. It also
\nnoticed the fact that according to the medical evidence the
\ndeceased had suffered 7 external injuries out of which two were
\nbruises. While according to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 all the
\naccused persons had assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons.
\nThus, it found contradiction between the ocular evidence and the
\nmedical evidence which according to it makes the ocular
\nevidence of PWs.1 and 2 suspect. The court also noticed the fact
\nthat one of the weapons carried by the accused was a licensed gun
\nwhich was loaded but was found not to have been discharged as
\nalso there was no corresponding gunshot injury on the body of
\nthe deceased, still the two eye witnesses had stated before the
\ncourt that each of the accused had assaulted the deceased with the
\nweapon carried by them. The trial court also noticed the
\ncontradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and further noticed
\nthe fact that PW-1 in his cross examination had specifically
\nadmitted that his complaint was recorded by the investigating
\nofficer at the place of incident, thus, it came to the conclusion that
\nthe FIR was not recorded at the Police Station but the same was
\nrecorded at the place where the dead body was found. The trial
\ncourt on an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case, came to the conclusion that it is not safe to place
\nreliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who were otherwise
\nclosely related to the deceased hence, acquitted all the accused
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court in appeal however, came to the conclusion
\nthat the discrepancies found in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are
\nnot material discrepancies as also the difference in the medical
\nevidence and the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was not so much
\nat variance so as to reject the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2. It
\ncame to the conclusion that there is no surprise in PW-2 taking a
\ndifferent route than the one taken by him while going to the
\ntemple and placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 after
\nseparating the grain from the chaff, convicted 6 of the appellants
\nwhile it rejected the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in regard to five
\nother accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
\nparties and perused the records, are inclined to agree with the
\nfindings of the trial court rather than that of the High Court.
\nThough the finding of the trial court that PW-1 should be treated
\nas a chance witness, in our opinion, cannot be correct because it
\nis quite often the normal practice in the village that when a
\nmember of the family takes the cattle for grazing, somebody else
\ncarries the lunch for that person therefore, it cannot be said with
\ncertainty that PW-1 was a chance witness. However, other
\ncircumstances make us agree with the trial court that this witness
\nmight not have seen the incident at all. It is to be noted that in the
\ncomplaint it was stated that he went to Itayali to meet Moti Ram
\nKachhi, but he could not meet him hence he came back to
\nBhadera. Most likely finding it difficult to convince the court the
\nreason why he went to Itayali and came back just in time to
\nwitness the incident, he improved his evidence when he stated
\nbefore the court that he went to Itayali because the deceased had
\nasked him to go there and call Moti Ram Kachhi which was not
\nthe case in the complaint. Be that as it may, the fact remains his
\ngoing to Itayali which accounts for the purpose of timing is not
\nestablished because said Moti Ram was never contacted nor this
\npart of the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated  from any other
\nsource. This is a vital piece of link evidence which is missing
\nfrom the prosecution case and creates a doubt why PW-1 stayed
\nback in the grazing field for  nearly two hours after serving lunch
\nto his uncle. Therefore, the trial court was justified in drawing an
\nadverse inference in regard to the possible presence of PW-1 at
\nthe time of the incident. Then again we notice that this witness
\nwhen he saw the accused persons heading towards his uncle,
\nallegedly got scared and hid behind a tree but he also says that he
\nhad seen his father and uncle in the neighbouring field but he did
\nnot make any attempt to join them. This is an unusual conduct
\nbecause even according to PW-1, the accused persons did not
\nattempt to threaten him or his father PW-2 and uncle PW-6 even
\nthough they intervened in the fight which makes the presence of
\nPWs.1 and 2 doubtful. As noticed by the trial court, we also see
\nthat there are material contradictions between the evidence of
\nthese witnesses and the medical evidence which also adds to the
\nbundle of suspicions as to the presence of this witness.\n<\/p>\n
          The most important factor which creates more substantial
\ndoubt as to the prosecution case is found in the cross examination
\nof PW-1. According to this witness, after the accused persons
\ntook to their heels, he went to the Police Station and lodged a
\nwritten report which is marked as Ex. P-1. It is the case of the
\ndefence throughout that the incident in question was not
\nwitnessed by anybody and Ex. P-1 came into existence after the
\nmurder of the deceased came to be known and after due
\ndeliberations a complaint involving these accused was prepared.
\nIn this background, if we notice the answer given by PW-1, in
\nour opinion, it neatly fits into the defence theory. In paragraph 18
\nof his evidence, PW-1 states : “It is wrong that I, Udayveer Singh
\nand Budh Sen are of the same party. I do not remember if the
\npolice took my signature on my report after spot inspection. It
\nmay be but I do not remember exactly. My report was written on
\nthe spot only. It was not raining at that time. When we took the
\ndead body from the spot, the sun had set and it was dark.”
\n\tThe learned counsel for the State of M.P., however,
\ncontended that what was stated in the said part of the evidence of
\nPW-1, was referable to the inquest report and not the FIR. We
\nhave examined the original which is in Hindi and the translation
\nis admittedly correct. A reading of this part of the evidence shows
\nthat this witness was speaking about 2 reports. The first report
\nwhich he refers to must be in regard to the inquest in regard to
\nwhich he says that he does not remember if the Police took his
\nsignatures after the spot inspection. The latter part of the evidence
\ncertainly refers to his complaint which he in specific terms states
\nwas written on the spot only. Even assuming that there is some
\ndoubt as to the interpretation of this part of his evidence since the
\nsame is not clarified by the prosecution by way of re-
\nexamination, the benefit of doubt should go to the defence which
\nhas in specific terms taken a stand that the FIR came into being
\nonly after the dead body was recovered. We also notice that there
\nis considerable doubt in regard to the place of incident also. From
\nthe medical evidence we notice that the deceased suffered 3
\nmajor incised wounds leading to the severance of the blood
\nvessels and amputation of his hand near the wrist and the body in
\nquestion was lying at the spot till the Police came which was
\nnearly 4 to 5 hours later but still the investigating agency was
\nunable to find any blood on the spot. Of course, the prosecution
\nhas given an explanation that after the incident in question it had
\nrained but even then it is difficult to believe even traces of blood
\ncould not have been found on the soil inspite of the rain. The
\nabsence of any such material also supports the prosecution case
\nthat the incident in question might not have happened at the place
\nof incident. In the background of these deficiencies in the
\nprosecution case, we think the trial court was justified in coming
\nto the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case
\nhence the trial court was justified in acquitting all the accused
\npersons. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the High Court
\nwas not justified in taking a contrary view.\n<\/p>\n
          For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the
\nsame is allowed. The conviction of the appellants is set aside. The
\nappellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds shall stand discharged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 Author: S Hegde Bench: N Santosh Hegde, B P Singh. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 624 of 1998 PETITIONER: Ramsewak & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of M.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2004 BENCH: N Santosh Hegde & B P Singh. JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-226897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 - 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\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-28T20:12:38+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-28T20:12:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3303,\"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\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-28T20:12:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 - 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\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-28T20:12:38+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-28T20:12:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004"},"wordCount":3303,"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\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004","name":"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-28T20:12:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsewak-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramsewak & Ors vs State Of M.P on 13 April, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/226897","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=226897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}