{"id":240521,"date":"1999-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999"},"modified":"2016-02-01T14:22:50","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T08:52:50","slug":"sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, M.Srinivasan, N.S.Heger<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSUKHAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/10\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.Pattanaik, M.Srinivasan, N.S.Heger\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>PATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appellant  stood  charged for the  offence  under<br \/>\nSection\t 307 IPC for causing injury to Nakkal on 17.4.78  at<br \/>\n7.30  a.m.   near  the\tChak in\t village  Tejalhera  in\t the<br \/>\ndistrict  of  Mjuzaffarnagar.\tOn the\tbasis  of  materials<br \/>\navailable  on record through the prosecution witnesses,\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Additional  Sessions  Judge convicted him  for\t the<br \/>\noffence\t under\tSection\t 307 and sentenced him\tto  rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment of five years.  On an appeal being carried, the<br \/>\nHigh  Court of Allahabad upheld the conviction and  sentence<br \/>\nof  the\t appellant  and dismissed the  appeal.\t This  Court<br \/>\nhaving\tgranted\t leave,\t the present appeal  is\t before\t us.<br \/>\nProsecution  case in nutshell is that Nakkal appeared at the<br \/>\npolice\tstation on the date of occurrence at 9.40 a.m.\t and<br \/>\nnarrated  the  incident\t as  to how he was  injured  by\t the<br \/>\naccused.   The\tpolice\tthen treated the said  statement  as<br \/>\nFirst  Information  Report and started\tinvestigation.\t The<br \/>\ninformant  was\tthen  taken  to\t the  hospital\tfor  medical<br \/>\nexamination.As per the FIR, the accused Sukhar is the nephew<br \/>\nof   Nakkal   and  had\tcultivated   the  land\t of   Nakkal<br \/>\nforcibly.When  Nakkal  demanded batai, Sukhar abused  Nakhal<br \/>\nand  refused  to  give\tany batai.   Thus,there\t was  enmity<br \/>\nbetween\t Nakkal\t and Sukhar.  On the fateful day during\t the<br \/>\nmorning\t hours,while  Nakkal was going on the  road,  Sukhar<br \/>\ncaught hold of his back and fired a pistol shot towards him.<br \/>\nNakkal\traised\tan  alarm on account of which Ram  Kala\t and<br \/>\nPitam  reached the scene of occurrence and at that point  of<br \/>\ntime, Nakkal fell down and the accused made his escape.\t The<br \/>\ntwo  witnesses,\t Pitam and Ram Kala, brought Nakkal  to\t the<br \/>\npolice\tstation whereupon the police recorded the  statement<br \/>\nof  Nakkal  and started investigation.\tThe said Nakkal\t was<br \/>\nexamined  by PW 5, the Doctor who was on duty at the Primary<br \/>\nHealth\tCentre\tand gave the injury report, Exh.  Ka-6.\t  On<br \/>\ncompletion  of\tinvestigation,\tthe   police  submitted\t the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet  and  ultimately the accused stood\t his  trial.<br \/>\nDuring\ttrial, the prosecution witnesses, PW 1 and 2  merely<br \/>\nstated\tas  to\twhat  they heard from  the  injured  at\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  point\t of time and according to PW 2, the  injured<br \/>\nhad  told him that the assailant, Sukhar had fired upon him.<br \/>\nIt  is\tto  be stated that while the trial was\tpending\t the<br \/>\ninjured\t Nakkal\t died but the prosecution did not  make\t any<br \/>\nattempt\t to establish how he died or his death is in any way<br \/>\nconnected  with the injury sustained by him on the  relevant<br \/>\ndate  of  occurrence.\tEven it is not known as to  when  he<br \/>\ndied.\tThe  learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion\tthat<br \/>\nthe  FIR  recorded  by\tthe Investigating  Officer  and\t the<br \/>\nstatement  of Nakkal recorded under Section 161 of the\tCode<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure was admissible under Section 33 of the<br \/>\nEvidence  Act and relying upon the said material as well  as<br \/>\nthe  statement\tof PW 1 to the effect that the injured\ttold<br \/>\nhim  that the accused, Sukhar has fired at him, the  learned<br \/>\nSessions Judge convicted the accused\/appellant under Section<br \/>\n307  IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous\timprisonment<br \/>\nfor  five  years.  On an appeal, the High Court came to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the FIR as well as the statement given  by<br \/>\nthe  injured to the Investigating Officer is not  admissible<br \/>\nas  dying  declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence\t Act<br \/>\nand  in our view, the said conclusion is unassailable.\t The<br \/>\nHigh Court further came to the conclusion that the statement<br \/>\nof  the\t injured under Section 161 of the Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  could  not be held admissible in  evidence  under<br \/>\nSection\t 33  of\t the  Evidence Act and we  do  not  see\t any<br \/>\ninfirmity  with the said conclusion.  The High Court however<br \/>\nheavily\t relied\t upon the statement of Pitam, PW 2 and\teven<br \/>\nthough\the  was\t an eye witness to the\toccurrence  but\t his<br \/>\nevidence  to the effect that as soon as he reached the place<br \/>\nwhere  the injured was lying, the injured told him that\t the<br \/>\ninjury\thas  been caused on him by the appellant, should  be<br \/>\nadmissible  under  Section  6 of the Evidence Act.   On\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of aforesaid statement of PW 2 and the evidence of PW<br \/>\n5,  the High Court came to the ultimate conclusion that\t the<br \/>\ncharge\tunder  Section 307 has thus been established  beyond<br \/>\nreasonable   doubt.   Consequently,  the   appeal   of\t the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant   was\t dismissed.   Ms  Sandhya   Goswami,<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel  appearing  for the  appellant\t strenuously<br \/>\ncontended  that\t the evidence of PW 2 cannot be held  to  be<br \/>\nadmissible  under Section 6 of the Evidence Act inasmuch  as<br \/>\nwhat  the injured told the witness when the witness  reached<br \/>\nthe  scene of occurrence and the factum of alleged  shooting<br \/>\nby  the accused at the injured cannot be said to have formed<br \/>\npart  of  the  same transaction.  According to\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel,  the evidence of PW 2 being categorical that by the<br \/>\ntime  he reached the scene of occurrence, several people had<br \/>\ngathered,  it cannot be said that what the injured stated to<br \/>\nhim  in\t fact  formed  part of the  same  transaction.\t The<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel  appearing for the respondent on the  other<br \/>\nhand  contended that a plain reading of the evidence of PW 2<br \/>\nwould  clearly\testablish  that the firing of  shot  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and\trushing\t down  of  PW  2  to  the  scene  of<br \/>\noccurrence  and\t the statement of the injured to said  PW  2<br \/>\nmust  be  held\tto  be part of\tthe  same  transaction\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the High Court was fully justified in coming  to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the evidence is admissible under Section<br \/>\n6 of the Evidence Act as a part of res gestae.\tMs.  Sandhya<br \/>\nGoswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further<br \/>\ncontended that even if the evidence should be admissible but<br \/>\nthe  same  cannot be held to be reliable and, therefore,  on<br \/>\nsuch   unreliable  testimony  the   conviction\tcan  not  be<br \/>\nsustained  for\tthe charge under Section 307  IPC.   Learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the respondent, on the other  hand,  submitted<br \/>\nthat  nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of<br \/>\nPW  2 to dub him unreliable and as such Courts below rightly<br \/>\nrelied upon his evidence.  In view of the rival submissions,<br \/>\nthe  first question that arises for consideration is whether<br \/>\nthe  evidence  of  PW 2 indicating what he  heard  from\t the<br \/>\ninjured can at all be held admissible under Section 6 of the<br \/>\nEvidence  Act.\t Before examining the question, it would  be<br \/>\nappropriate  to extract the relevant part of the evidence of<br \/>\nsaid  PW  2:-  2.  It was one year &amp; 11 months ago at  7<br \/>\n7.30  A.M.   while I had gone to attend the call  of  nature<br \/>\nwhen  I\t heard the sound of firing and I went there and\t saw<br \/>\nNakkal\tlying  on the ground near the sugar cane  of  Kallan<br \/>\nafter being hit by a bullet.  I did not see him being hit by<br \/>\nthe bullet.  When I asked him Nakkal told me that his nephew<br \/>\nSukkar hit him with the bullet.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Section  6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to\t the<br \/>\ngeneral\t rule  whereunder  the\t hearsay  evidence   becomes<br \/>\nadmissible.   But for bringing such hearsay evidence  within<br \/>\nthe  provisions\t of  Section  6,  what\tis  required  to  be<br \/>\nestablished  is that it must be almost contemporaneous\twith<br \/>\nthe  acts  and there should not be an interval\twhich  would<br \/>\nallow  fabrication.   The statements sought to be  admitted,<br \/>\ntherefore,  as\tforming part of res gestae, must  have\tbeen<br \/>\nmade   contemporaneously  with\tthe   acts  or\t immediately<br \/>\nthereafter.  The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmores<br \/>\nEvidence  Act reads thus:   Under the present Exception [to<br \/>\nhearsay]  an  utterance\t is  by hypothesis,  offered  as  an<br \/>\nassertion  to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a<br \/>\ncar-brake  was\tset or not set), and the only  condition  is<br \/>\nthat  it  shall have been made spontaneously, i.e.   as\t the<br \/>\nnatural\t effusion of a state of excitement.  Now this  state<br \/>\nof  excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting<br \/>\nfact   has  ended.   The   declaration,\t therefore,  may  be<br \/>\nadmissible  even  though  subsequent   to  the\t occurrence,<br \/>\nprovided  it is near enough in time to allow the  assumption<br \/>\nthat the exciting influence continued.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Sarkar  on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition) summarises the<br \/>\nlaw  relating to applicability of Section 6 of the  Evidence<br \/>\nAct  thus:   1.\t  The declarations (oral  or  written  must<br \/>\nrelate\tto  the act which is in issue or  relevant  thereto;<br \/>\nthey  are  not admissible merely because they  accompany  an<br \/>\nact.   Moreover the declarations must relate to and  explain<br \/>\nthe  fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous<br \/>\nor  subsequent\tthereto\t unless\t such facts are\t part  of  a<br \/>\ntransaction which is continuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.    The\t  declarations\t   must\t  be   substantially<br \/>\ncontemporaneous\t with the fact and not merely the  narrative<br \/>\nof a past.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.   The\tdeclaration and the act may be by  the\tsame<br \/>\nperson,\t or  they  may be by different\tpersons,  e.g.,\t the<br \/>\ndeclarations  of the victim, assailant and bystanders.\t In<br \/>\nconspiracy, riot &amp;c.the declarations of all concerned in the<br \/>\ncommon object are admissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.  Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to<br \/>\nunderstand the significance of the act, declarations are not<br \/>\nevidence of the truth of the matters stated.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This Court in Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another V.<br \/>\nState of A.P.  1996 (6) SCC 241 considering the law embodied<br \/>\nin Section 6 of the Evidence Act held thus:   The principle<br \/>\nof  law embodied in Section 6 of the Evidence Act is usually<br \/>\nknown  as the rule of res gestae recognised in English\tlaw.<br \/>\nThe essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not<br \/>\nin issue, is so connected with the fact in issue &#8220;as to form<br \/>\npart  of the same transaction&#8221; becomes relevant by  itself.<br \/>\nThis  rule is, roughly speaking, an exception to the general<br \/>\nrule that hearsay evidence is not admissible.  The rationale<br \/>\nin making certain statement or fact admissible under Section<br \/>\n6  of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity\t and<br \/>\nimmediacy  of such statement or fact in relation to the fact<br \/>\nin  issue.  But it is necessary that such fact or  statement<br \/>\nmust  be  a part of the same transaction.  In  other  words,<br \/>\nsuch  statement must have been made contemporaneous with the<br \/>\nacts  which  constitute the offence or at least\t immediately<br \/>\nthereafter.  But if there was an interval, however slight it<br \/>\nmay be, which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the<br \/>\nstatement is not part of res gestae.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  another  recent judgment of this Court  in  Rattan<br \/>\nSingh  V.   State  of  H.P.  1997 (4) SCC  161,\t this  Court<br \/>\nexamined  the applicability of Section 6 of the Evidence Act<br \/>\nto the statement of the deceased and held thus:\t  .  The<br \/>\naforesaid  statement  of  Kanta Devi can be  admitted  under<br \/>\nSection 6 of the Evidence Act on account of its proximity of<br \/>\ntime  to  the act of murder.  Illustration A to Section\t 6<br \/>\nmakes it clear.\t It reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>      (a)  A  is accused of the murder of B by beating\thim.<br \/>\nWhatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the<br \/>\nbeating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of<br \/>\nthe transaction, is a relevant fact.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (emphasis\t supplied)  Here  the act of  the  assailant<br \/>\nintruding  into\t the  courtyard during dead  of\t the  night,<br \/>\nvictims\t identification of the assailant, her pronouncement<br \/>\nthat  appellant\t was standing with a gun and his firing\t the<br \/>\ngun  at her, are all circumstances so intertwined with\teach<br \/>\nother  by proximity of time and space that the statement  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased became part of the same transaction.  Hence it<br \/>\nis admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Applying\tthe ratio of the aforesaid two cases to\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  PW  2, we have no hesitation to  come  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  his statement indicating that the  injured<br \/>\ntold  him  that\t his nephew has fired at him,  would  become<br \/>\nadmissible  under  Section 6 of the Evidence Act.   We\tare,<br \/>\ntherefore,  unable  to\taccept the first  submission  of  Ms<br \/>\nGoswami,  learned counsel appearing for the appellant.\t The<br \/>\nnext  question that arises for consideration is whether even<br \/>\nif  the\t statement becomes admissible, can the statement  be<br \/>\nheld  to be so reliable that a conviction under Section\t 307<br \/>\ncan  be\t based\tthereupon.  PW 2 in the\t cross-\t examination<br \/>\ncandidly  admitted that Sukhar, the present appellant and he<br \/>\nare  inimical to each other since long before.\tIt was\talso<br \/>\nelicited  in the cross-examination of the said witness\tthat<br \/>\nby the time he reached the scene of occurrence, more than 20<br \/>\npersons had gathered next to Nakkal and yet none of them has<br \/>\nbeen  examined by the prosecution to corroborate PW 2 as  to<br \/>\nwhat  was  told\t to him by the injured.\t  The  witness\talso<br \/>\nstated\tin the cross-examination that Nakkal was naming\t the<br \/>\naccused\t as  his assailant in front of all those people\t who<br \/>\nhad  gathered  but  it\tis  not understood  as\tto  why\t the<br \/>\nprosecution has chosen not to examine any one of them but to<br \/>\nexamine\t only PW 2 who was admittedly inimically disposed of<br \/>\ntowards\t the accused\/appellant.\t In this view of the matter,<br \/>\nthe  evidence  of  PW  2 cannot be held to  be\tof  such  an<br \/>\nunimpeachable  character  on  whose   testimony\t alone,\t the<br \/>\nconviction  can be based without any corroboration.  On\t the<br \/>\nother hand, the witness being inimical to the accused and on<br \/>\naccount\t of what has been elicited in his cross-examination,<br \/>\nhis  evidence requires corroboration before being  accepted.<br \/>\nAdmittedly there is not an iota of corroboration either from<br \/>\nany  oral evidence or from any other circumstance.  In\tthis<br \/>\nview  of  the matter, we have no hesitation to come  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the  conviction of the  appellant  on\t the<br \/>\nunreliable   and  shaky\t evidence  of\tPW  2  without\t any<br \/>\ncorroboration,\tcannot\tbe  sustained.\tWe  accordingly\t set<br \/>\naside  the  conviction and sentence of appellant and  acquit<br \/>\nhim of the charges levelled against him.  The accused who is<br \/>\nin jail should be released forthwith.  The appeal is allowed<br \/>\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, M.Srinivasan, N.S.Heger PETITIONER: SUKHAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/1999 BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, M.Srinivasan, N.S.Heger JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK, J. The appellant stood charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injury to Nakkal [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 - 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\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-01T08:52:50+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T08:52:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2282,\"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\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T08:52:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 - 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\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-01T08:52:50+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T08:52:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999"},"wordCount":2282,"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\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999","name":"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T08:52:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/240521","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=240521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}