{"id":231460,"date":"2010-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-05T07:42:24","modified_gmt":"2016-02-05T02:12:24","slug":"ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n                    Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1993\n\n\n                 Ganesh Singh Mandvi\n                                ...Petitioners\n\n\n                   VERSUS\n\n                        Shivratri Devi and others\n                                                 ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!          Shri Arun Kochar counsel for appellants\n\n\n^          Shri  Pravin  Das  Dy. GA  for  respondent\n           No.2\/State\n          Since   despite  the  notice   issued   to\n          respondent  No.1 which returned un-served  with\n          an   endorsement  that  she  had  left  village\n          Machatoli  8  years  back, Shri  Prateek  Kumar\n          Sinha  advocate  who is in the  panel  of  High\n          Court Legal Service Authority, is appointed  as\n          counsel to appear and argue on her behalf.\n\n\nHon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker\n\n\n       Dated:15\/02\/2010\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n  CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374  OF THE CODE OF            \n                 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                 (15.02.2010)<\/p>\n<p>      This  appeal is directed against the  judgment<br \/>\ndated  5.5.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nBilaspur,  in Sessions Trial No. 264\/1988 convicting<br \/>\nthe  accused\/appellants for the offences  punishable<br \/>\nunder   Sections  376  (2)  (g)  and  342  IPC   and<br \/>\nsentencing   each   of  them  to  undergo   rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment  for  ten years u\/s  376  (2)  (g)  and<br \/>\nrigorous  imprisonment for six months u\/s  342  IPC.<br \/>\nDuring the pendency of appeal accused\/appellant No.2<br \/>\n(Angadsingh) has expired and therefore  this  appeal<br \/>\nrelates  to appellants Ganesh Singh Mandvi and  R.L.<br \/>\nSharma, only.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    As  per the case of the complainant\/respondent<br \/>\nNo.1  she had lodged a complaint on 13.1.1987 before<br \/>\nthe   Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class,<br \/>\nKatghora alleging that on 22.4.1986 she was forcibly<br \/>\ntaken  by  the  accused\/appellant No.1 Ganesh  Singh<br \/>\nMandvi  to his house on the pretext that her husband<br \/>\nwas  waiting for her. From there, she was  taken  to<br \/>\nthe  nearby  forest  where  all  the  three  accused<br \/>\npersons  had  ravished  her. Accused\/appellant  No.1<br \/>\nGanesh  Singh Mandvi had also snatched her two  year<br \/>\nchild  and threatened to kill him if she raised  any<br \/>\nalarm.  It is alleged that she was confined  to  the<br \/>\nhouse  of accused\/appellant No.1 Ganesh Singh Mandvi<br \/>\nfor  three  days  and  was repeatedly  subjected  to<br \/>\nforcible  sexual  intercourse by  all  of  them.  On<br \/>\n10.6.1986 she sat on hunger strike in front  of  the<br \/>\noffice  of  Superintending  Engineer,  Hasdeo  Bango<br \/>\nProject and thereafter on 12.6.1986 Police of police<br \/>\nstation  Katghora  registered the case  against  the<br \/>\naccused\/appellants.  However,   final   report   was<br \/>\nsubmitted by the police as a result of which she was<br \/>\nleft  with no other option but to file the complaint<br \/>\ncase against the accused\/appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    So  as to hold the accused\/appellants  guilty,<br \/>\ncomplainant has examined 05 witnesses in support  of<br \/>\nher  case. Statements of the accused\/appellants were<br \/>\nalso  recorded  under section 313  of  the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure in which they denied the  charges<br \/>\nlevelled  against them and pleaded  their  innocence<br \/>\nand false implication in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    After hearing the parties the trial Court  has<br \/>\nconvicted and sentenced the accused \/ appellants for<br \/>\nthe offences as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    Heard counsel for the parties and perused  the<br \/>\nmaterial  available on record including the judgment<br \/>\nimpugned.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Counsel  for the appellants submits  that  the<br \/>\ncomplaint  has been filed with an inordinate  delay.<br \/>\nHe  submits  that as per version of the  prosecutrix<br \/>\nherself   she  was  subjected  to  forcible   sexual<br \/>\nintercourse  by the accused\/appellants on  22.4.1986<br \/>\nwhereas  no prompt report of the same was lodged  by<br \/>\nher  and  even  the  complaint  case  was  filed  on<br \/>\n13.1.1987. He submits that the prosecutrix  has  not<br \/>\neven  been  medically examined.  According  to  him,<br \/>\nthere     was    some    civil    dispute    between<br \/>\naccused\/appellant No.2 Angadsingh  (since  deceased)<br \/>\nand  the  father-in-law  of the  prosecutrix  namely<br \/>\nOnkar  Prasad  (PW-5). He submits that statement  of<br \/>\nthe  prosecutrix  being full of  contradictions  and<br \/>\nomissions  cannot  be  held to  be  trustworthy  and<br \/>\nconviction based thereon would be illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    On  the  other hand counsel for the respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 supports the impugned judgment and submits that<br \/>\nthe  same  being  strictly in  accordance  with  the<br \/>\nevidence  available on record is not  prone  to  any<br \/>\ndisturbance in appeal. He submits that present is  a<br \/>\ncase  where a poor lady has been sexually  exploited<br \/>\nby  the  three accused persons and despite her  best<br \/>\nefforts,  the  police had refused  to  register  and<br \/>\ninvestigate the matter compelling the prosecutrix to<br \/>\nfile     the    complaint    case    against     the<br \/>\naccused\/appellants. He also submits that the defence<br \/>\nhas  not  been able to bring forth any  material  to<br \/>\nshow the false implication of the accused\/appellants<br \/>\nin this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     State  counsel  also  rendered  his  valuable<br \/>\nassistance to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her  evidence<br \/>\nthat  on  22.4.1986 when she was returning from  her<br \/>\nparents&#8217;  house along with her two year child  in  a<br \/>\nbus in which accused\/appellant No.1<br \/>\nGanesh Singh Mandvi who was working as Forest  Guard<br \/>\nwas  also traveling. She has further stated that  he<br \/>\nforced her to alight the bus, took her to his  house<br \/>\nand  confined her therein. According to her, accused<br \/>\nGanesh Singh Mandvi called other two accused persons<br \/>\nnamely  Angadsingh (since deceased) and R.L.  Sharma<br \/>\nand  in  the  night all of them consumed liquor  and<br \/>\nthen  after  taking their meals, accused  Angadsingh<br \/>\n(since  deceased) and R.L. Sharma  left  the  place.<br \/>\nThereafter, accused Ganesh Singh Mandvi took her  to<br \/>\nthe  forest  depot where two other  accused  persons<br \/>\nnamely  Angadsingh (since deceased) and R.L.  Sharma<br \/>\nwere  already present. All the three accused persons<br \/>\nthreatened her to kill her child in case she  raised<br \/>\nan  alarm.  Thereafter, accused Ganesh Singh  Mandvi<br \/>\ntied  her hands and eyes, gagged her mouth and  then<br \/>\nfirst  of  all  accused Angadsingh (since  deceased)<br \/>\ncommitted  sexual  intercourse with  her  which  was<br \/>\nfollowed   by   other  two  accused  persons   also.<br \/>\nAccording  to her even thereafter she was  subjected<br \/>\nto  sexual  intercourse  by all  the  three  accused<br \/>\npersons  during  her stay for three  days.  She  has<br \/>\nfurther stated that on the fourth day she was  asked<br \/>\nby  accused Angadsingh (since deceased)  to lodge  a<br \/>\nreport  against her husband for demand of dowry  and<br \/>\non  her  refusal he himself prepared the report  and<br \/>\nforcefully  obtained  her  signature  on  that   and<br \/>\nsubmitted the same in police station Machatoli.  She<br \/>\nhas  stated that thereafter she went to her parents&#8217;<br \/>\nhouse and four days&#8217; thereafter the minor child  was<br \/>\nhanded  over  to  her by the accused\/appellants  and<br \/>\nthen  she narrated the entire incident to her father<br \/>\nwho  took her to the house of her husband where  she<br \/>\nnarrated the incident to him also and then  both  of<br \/>\nthem  went to police station Machatoli to lodge  the<br \/>\nreport  but  the  Station House Officer  refused  to<br \/>\nregister  the same. According to her, after  refusal<br \/>\nfrom  the Station House Officer to register the FIR,<br \/>\nshe went to the office of Collector, Bilaspur, along<br \/>\nwith  her  husband  where she  was  assured  by  the<br \/>\nCollector  regarding an action to be  taken  on  her<br \/>\nreport.  In  her cross examination this witness  has<br \/>\nadmitted  that though the place where  the  incident<br \/>\nhad  taken place is a densely populated locality but<br \/>\nshe did not disclose the incident to anyone. She has<br \/>\nstated  that when she was made to get down from  the<br \/>\nbus  by  accused Ganesh Singh Mandvi, she had raised<br \/>\nan  alarm but no one could hear her voice. Statement<br \/>\nof  the  prosecutrix prima facie appears to  be  un-<br \/>\nnatural  and fabricated one and thus not  worthy  of<br \/>\ncredence.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  Arun Kumar Trivedi (PW-2) who is the husband of<br \/>\nthe  prosecutrix has stated in his evidence that  at<br \/>\nthe  relevant  time he was working as timekeeper  in<br \/>\nthe  irrigation department. According  to  him,  his<br \/>\nfather  in  law had brought the prosecutrix  to  his<br \/>\nhouse and only then he came to know about her having<br \/>\nbeen subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by all<br \/>\nthe three accused persons. This witness has admitted<br \/>\nthat he was informed by his wife that she had lodged<br \/>\na  report against him for demand of dowry. According<br \/>\nto  him, even after an assurance from the Collector,<br \/>\nBilaspur  report  was  not  registered  against  the<br \/>\naccused\/appellants.  He  has  stated  that   accused<br \/>\nGanesh   Singh Mandvi had asked him to part with Rs.<br \/>\n5000  to each of the accused persons for not  making<br \/>\nthe incident of rape on his wife public. However, on<br \/>\nbeing   confronted   with  his  previous   statement<br \/>\nrecorded  under Section 200 of the Code of  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure,  this witness has stated that  he  cannot<br \/>\nsay  as to how the said statement has been recorded.<br \/>\nIt  is relevant to note that in Ex. D-2 this witness<br \/>\nhas  stated that his wife had informed him that  she<br \/>\nwas  taken  by the accused persons but in the  Court<br \/>\nstatement  he  has  stated that  she  was  taken  by<br \/>\naccused\/appellant Ganesh Singh Mandvi only  and  was<br \/>\nsubjected  to rape. This witness has stated  in  his<br \/>\ncross  examination  that in his  statement  recorded<br \/>\nunder  Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nhe  had  not made any statement regarding demand  of<br \/>\nRs.  5000 by each of the accused\/appellants for  not<br \/>\nmaking the matter public. According to this witness,<br \/>\nthe   prosecutrix   was  kept  in   the   house   of<br \/>\naccused\/appellant Ganesh Ram Mandvi for 8  days  and<br \/>\nwas  subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by all<br \/>\nthe  accused persons whereas the prosecutrix herself<br \/>\nhas  stated that she was kept in his house for three<br \/>\ndays only.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Thus the evidence of the prosecution witnesses<br \/>\nparticularly that of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and  her<br \/>\nhusband Arun Kumar Trivedi (PW-2) appear to be  full<br \/>\nof  contradictions and omissions and therefore  does<br \/>\nnot  inspire  confidence of  this  Court.  Moreover,<br \/>\nthere are various inconsistencies in their statement<br \/>\nrecorded  under Section 200 of the Code of  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  and that recorded before the  Court.  Not<br \/>\nonly  this, the prosecutrix herself has stated  that<br \/>\nshe   was   made   to  alight   the   bus   by   the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant Ganesh Singh Mandvi near a barrier<br \/>\nand accompany him to his house but she did not offer<br \/>\nany  resistance  to  his act and permitted  all  the<br \/>\nthree  accused  persons  to sexual  intercourse  for<br \/>\nthree long days. Thus the entire story put forth  by<br \/>\nthe  prosecutrix  appears to be quite  unnatural  to<br \/>\nwarrant conviction.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   In view of the above factual background,  this<br \/>\nCourt  is of the view that the Court below has erred<br \/>\nin  appreciating  the evidence available  on  record<br \/>\nwhile   recording   the  findings   convicting   and<br \/>\nsentencing  the accused\/appellants for the  offences<br \/>\nmentioned above. Accordingly, the appeal is  allowed<br \/>\nand  the  impugned  judgment  dated  5.5.1993  being<br \/>\ncontrary to the evidence available on record is  set<br \/>\naside.  Appellants  are  acquitted  of  the  charges<br \/>\nlevelled against them. Appellants are reported to be<br \/>\non bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1993 Ganesh Singh Mandvi &#8230;Petitioners VERSUS Shivratri Devi and others &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Arun Kochar counsel for appellants ^ Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent No.2\/State Since despite [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-05T02:12:24+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\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T02:12:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1618,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T02:12:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-05T02:12:24+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\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T02:12:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010"},"wordCount":1618,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010","name":"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T02:12:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-singh-mandvi-vs-shivratri-devi-and-others-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganesh Singh Mandvi vs Shivratri Devi And Others on 15 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231460","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=231460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}