{"id":235455,"date":"2009-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-03T22:38:18","modified_gmt":"2018-07-03T17:08:18","slug":"hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 157 of 1999 (R)\n                                       ----\n\n                 Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated\n          18.05.1999 passed in S.T. No. 398 of 1994 by Shri S.K.Mishra, Additional Sessions\n          Judge, Seraikella.\n                                             ----\n          Hadi Ram Singh Sardar                       ....   ....     Appellant\n                                       Versus\n          The State of Jharkhand                      ....   ....     Respondent\n                                                ....\n\n          For the Appellant        :   Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.\n          For the State            :   Ms. Jagannath Mahto, A.P.P.\n                                             ....\n\n                                       PRESENT\n\n                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI\n                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR\n\nBy Court: -      The sole appellant Hadi Ram Singh Sardar has challenged the<\/pre>\n
          judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.1999 passed by
\n          Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1994
\n          whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence under
\n          Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
          2.     Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.1992 at
\n          about 11:00 A.M., the informant Hablu Murmu (P.W.-4) and his elder
\n          brother Sona Ram Murmu @ Bedgu (deceased) were going to village
\n          Gotultand on a bullock cart for bringing soil. It is further stated that when
\n          the bullock cart reached in front of the house of appellant, Hadi Ram
\n          Singh Sardar (appellant) suddenly came out of his house and gave 5-6
\n          farsa blow on the deceased due to that deceased received injuries and died
\n          on the spot.    It is further stated that on query made by informant,
\n          appellant disclosed that the deceased had illicit relation with his wife and
\n          because of that the appellant killed him.\n<\/p>\n
          3.     On the basis of aforesaid information the police instituted Chandil
\n          P.S. Case No. 24 of 1994 dated 24.02.1994 under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
\n          and took up investigation.     After completing the investigation, police
\n          submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the
\n          I.P.C. Cognizance of the offence under Section 302 was taken and the case
\n          was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned court below framed the
\n          charge and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and
\n          claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
4.    The prosecution had examined altogether 08 witnesses in support
\nof its case. The prosecution also brought some documents or record and
\ngot the same exhibited. Ext-1 Series – are the signatures of witnesses on
\nInquest Report, Seizure List, Fardbeyan and F.I.R., Ext-2 – is the Post-
\nmortem Report, Ext-3 -is the fardbeyan, Ext-4 – is the Inquest Report, Ext-
\n5 – is the Seizure List. Learned court below after considering the materials
\navailable on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
\nThe present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment\/order
\nof the Court below.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Shri A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the
\nimpugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that from the joint
\nreading of statement of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, it is apparent that there is
\nmaterial contradiction on the point of manner of occurrence. He further
\nsubmitted that P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are the relatives of deceased and they
\nare highly interested in the case of prosecution and in the absence of
\ncorroboration from independent witness, it is not safe to convict the
\nappellant on the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses. It is further
\nsubmitted that the seizure of farsa has not been proved properly. The said
\nfarsa has not been produced in court and no proper explanation has been
\ngiven, which cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution.           The
\nprosecution has not been able to prove the motive of the case as well
\nwhich also cast a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. He urged
\nthat the judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained
\nin law.\n<\/p>\n
6.    On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidences of
\nP.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who are the eye-witness of the occurrence, find full
\nsupport from the medical evidence as well as from the physical finding of
\nthe I.O. The other prosecution witness including the independent
\nwitnesses such as P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 have supported and corroborated the
\nstatement of eye witnesses. There is no illegality or irregularity in the
\nimpugned judgment warranting any interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Having heard the submissions, we have carefully examined the
\nevidences available on record. P.W.-7 Dr. Lalan Choudhary has deposed
\nthat on 25.02.1994, at about 11:30 A.M, he held post-mortem examination
\non the dead body of deceased Sona Ram Murmu and found nine incised
\nwound mostly on the neck, face and shoulder of the deceased. The Doctor
\nhas given opinion that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and caused
\nby sharp cutting weapon like farsa and the cause of death was due to
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
shock and hemorrhage. On perusal of cross-examination, we find that
\nnothing was elicited by the defence on which his testimony can be
\ndiscarded. His evidence is wholly acceptable. In our considered opinion,
\nthe prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased Sona Ram
\nMurmu had died a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
8.     Now, the question remains to be determined as to whether the
\nappellant had any hand in the commission of present crime? On appraisal
\nof the evidence on record, we find that P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are the eye-
\nwitnesses of the occurrence. P.W.-4 is the informant of this case and he
\nwas present at the time of occurrence with the deceased. He deposed that
\non the day of occurrence, at about 11:00 A.M., he along with his elder
\nbrother Sona Ram Murmu @ Bedgu was going for bringing soil on a
\nbullock cart. He further deposed that the bullock cart was driven by his
\nbrother and he was going in front of the said bullock cart. He further
\ndeposed that at that time itself, the appellant Hadi Ram Singh came out of
\nhis house armed with a farsa and given 5-6 blow of farsa on the neck of his
\nbrother due to that his brother died. It is further stated that thereafter, the
\nappellant fled away and entered in his house. He had further stated that
\nafter the occurrence, he disclosed about the occurrence to his mother. He
\nhad further stated that his sister-in-law had also witnessed the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
       From perusal of Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of deposition, we find
\nthat he had given a vivid description of manner of occurrence during the
\ncross-examination and there is nothing in these paragraphs on which his
\ncredibility can be doubted. At Paragraph No. 14, this witness had further
\nstated that he had no enmity with the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
9.     P.W.-5, Baishakhi Murmu, is the wife of the deceased. She stated
\nthat at the time of occurrence, she was keeping soil inside the house from
\nlane and her husband & ‘Devar’ were bringing soil on a bullock cart and
\nfrom there she saw that the appellant Hadi Ram was assaulting her
\nhusband with farsa while her husband was on a bullock cart. She had also
\nstated that at that time her brother-in-law (Dewar) was also present at the
\nplace of occurrence. During the cross-examination, she stated that apart
\nfrom herself and her Dewar, other villagers had also witnessed the
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
10.    Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the First
\nInformation Report, the informant (P.W.-4) had nowhere stated that P.W.-
\n5, who is wife of deceased, had also seen the occurrence from her own eye.\n<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
In this connection, it is well settled that First Information Report is not the
\nEncyclopedia of entire prosecution case and omission to state an
\nimportant fact in the F.I.R. will not render the said fact out of arena of
\nconsideration. The said fact can legally be considered along with other
\nevidence for arriving at a rightful conclusion. Thus, only because the
\nname of P.W.-5 has not been given in the F.I.R. as an eye-witness, her
\nevidence cannot be thrown over board. Thus, the aforesaid contention of
\nlearned counsel for the appellant is not worth acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
11.    It is further submitted that there is material contradiction in the
\nevidence of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 with regard to the manner of occurrence.
\nLearned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the
\nstatement of P.W.-4 at Paragraph No. 8 of his deposition where he had
\nstated that due to the assault his brother (deceased) had fallen on the
\nbullock cart itself, whereas P.W.-5 at Paragraph No. 3 had stated that due
\nto assault her husband fell on the ground. The aforesaid contradiction, in
\nour view, is trifling in nature, having no bearing on the case of
\nprosecution. Moreover, it appears that P.W.-5 in the cross-examination, at
\none place had categorically mentioned that her husband died on the
\nbullock cart itself. P.W.-5 is a rustic illiterate lady such contradictions in
\nher statement are not unnatural.\n<\/p>\n
12.    The statements of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 find full support from the
\nevidence of P.W.-1, Keshav Murmu, who appears to be a co-villager and
\nindependent witness. He had stated that after the occurrence, he came to
\nthe place of occurrence where the informant had disclosed that the
\nappellant Hadi Ram had assaulted the deceased. He had also stated that
\nin his presence, the police had recovered a blood stained farsa from the
\nhouse of the appellant. He has also proved his signature on the seizure
\nlist. The I.O. who has been examined in this case as P.W.-8, had also
\nstated at Paragraph-4 that he has seized the blood stained farsa from the
\nhouse of appellant. In the cross-examination at Paragraph No. 9, the I.O.
\nhad stated that he had seized the aforesaid ‘farsa’ on the disclosure made
\nby the appellant. Since the aforesaid statement of I.O. was given in course
\nof the cross-examination, the same remain unchallenged. Thus, we find
\nthat P.W.-1 and P.W.-8 also corroborated the statement of eye-witness to
\nthe extent that the accused after the occurrence fled to his house along
\nwith farsa. The statements of aforesaid two eye-witnesses, also find full
\nsupport from the medical evidence. The Doctor found altogether nine
\nincised wound on the body of deceased out of that injury No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
and 7 are on face, neck and on the shoulder of the deceased. This also
\ngoes to show that the appellant had given repeated farsa blow on the face
\nand neck of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
13.   The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.-4 and
\nP.W.-5 are close relatives of deceased and highly interested in the
\nprosecution and therefore, their evidences cannot become the basis for
\nconviction is also not worth acceptable.         Recently, their lordships of
\nSupreme Court in a decision reported in 2009 (1) JLJ SC 1 at Paragraph
\nNo. 7, have held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their
\n      evidence cannot per se be discarded.         When there is allegation of
\n      interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being
\n      relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused
\n      cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and
\n      credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness
\n      of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a
\n      factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a
\n      relation would nor conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an
\n      innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is
\n      made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse
\n      evidence to find our whether it is cogent and credible.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.   As noticed above, P.W.-4 had categorically stated that he or his
\nfamily members have no enmity with the appellant. Under the said
\ncircumstance, we find no reason, why these witnesses will falsely
\nimplicate the appellant and conceal the actual culprit.\n<\/p>\n
15.   The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the seizure
\nhas not been proved because P.W.-1 had stated that he went to the place of
\noccurrence at about 12:00 in noon and at that very time, the said seizure
\nwas made, whereas the I.O. has stated that the said seizure was made at
\n1:30 P.M. It is submitted that since there is contradiction regarding the
\ntime of seizure, the alleged seizure is doubtful. In our view, the said
\ncontradiction is minor in nature having no bearing on the case of
\nprosecution. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat the motive has not been proved, by now, it is well settled that when
\nthere is a direct, clinching and acceptable evidence on the point of
\noccurrence then absence of motive becomes irrelevant. Since the ocular
\ntestimony of prosecution witnesses are wholly reliable and acceptable,
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
      only on the ground of absence of motive, direct evidence cannot be
\n      thrown over board.\n<\/p>\n
      16.    Now coming to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
\n      that the said farsa has not been produced in the court and no explanation
\n      for the same was given, it may be mentioned that P.W.-8, the I.O. has
\n      stated in his deposition at Paragraph No. 10 that he had sent the farsa to
\n      forensic science laboratory for chemical examination and till the
\n      submission of charge sheet, the report of forensic science laboratory was
\n      not received by him. Thus, the reason for not producing the ‘farsa’ in
\n      court has been sufficiently explained.        In that view, the aforesaid
\n      submission of learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
      17.    In view of the ocular testimony of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 coupled with
\n      the seizure of blood stained farsa on the disclosure of appellant and also
\n      taking into consideration that the aforesaid ocular version of P.W.-4 and
\n      P.W.-5 find full corroboration from medical evidence and physical finding
\n      of I.O., we are of the view that the prosecution have been able to bring
\n      home the charge levelled against the appellant beyond the shadow of all
\n      reasonable doubt. We are of the considered opinion that learned court
\n      below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. We find no
\n      infirmity \/ illegality        in   impugned     judgment warranting any
\n      interference by this court.\n<\/p>\n
      18.    In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)<\/p>\n
                                                             (Prashant Kumar, J.)<\/p>\n
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated 19 \/03\/2009
\nSunil\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 157 of 1999 (R) —- Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.1999 passed in S.T. No. 398 of 1994 by Shri S.K.Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella. —- Hadi Ram Singh Sardar […]<\/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-235455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 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\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-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=\"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-03T17:08:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-03T17:08:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2332,\"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\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-03T17:08:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 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:\/\/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":"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 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\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-03T17:08:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-03T17:08:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009"},"wordCount":2332,"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\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009","name":"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-03T17:08:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hadi-ram-singh-sardar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs State Of Bihar on 19 March, 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:\/\/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\/235455","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=235455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}