{"id":240951,"date":"1983-06-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-06-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983"},"modified":"2017-07-07T17:07:35","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T11:37:35","slug":"sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983","title":{"rendered":"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 911, \t\t 1983 SCR (2) 312<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHEIKH ZAKIR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/06\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR  911\t\t  1983 SCR  (2) 312\n 1983 SCC  (4)\t10\t  1983 SCALE  (1)644\n\n\nACT:\n     Evidence Act-s.  133 and  illustration (b)\t to s.\t114-\nEvidence of  victim  of\t rape-Whether  an  offender  can  be\nconvicted on  uncorroborated testimony\tof victim of rape-In\nwhat  circumstances   and  to\twhat  extent  does  it\tneed\ncorroboration?\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  was convicted  under s. 376, I.P.C., for\nraping a  tribal woman\tmainly on the evidence of the victim\nwho  was   the\tcomplainant,   her  husband  and  two  other\nwitnesses, one\tof whom\t had deposed  that he  had seen\t the\nappellant on  the body\tof the\tvictim while  the other\t had\nstated that  he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the\nscene of occurrence. The High Court dismissed the appeal and\nconfirmed the conviction.\n     The appellant  submitted that the local Mukhiya to whom\nthe complainant and her husband were alleged to have gone to\ncomplain  about\t  the\tincident   immediately\t after\t its\noccurrence, the\t police officer\t who  was  alleged  to\thave\nrefused to record the complaint and also two other witnesses\nmentioned in  the complaint  had not  been examined  by\t the\nprosecution and this, together with the absence of a medical\nexamination report  given by  a doctor\tafter examining\t the\nperson of  the complainant immediately after the occurrence,\nwas fatal to the prosecution case.\n     The  Mukhiya   and\t one  of  the  two  other  witnesses\nmentioned in the complaint who had not been examined earlier\nwere examined  pursuant to  the orders made by the Court and\nthey did not support the prosecution case.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: Even though a victim of rape cannot be treated as\nan accomplice,\ton  account  of\t a  long  line\tof  judicial\ndecisions the  evidence of  the victim\tin a  rape  case  is\ntreated almost\tlike the evidence of an accomplice requiring\ncorroboration. Section\t133 of the Evidence Act says that an\naccomplice shall  be a\tcompetent witness against an accused\nperson and  a conviction  is not  illegal merely  because it\nproceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.\nBut the\t rule of  practice is that it is prudent to look for\ncorroboration of  the evidence\tof an  accomplice  by  other\nindependent evidence. This rule is based on human experience\nand is\tincorporated in\t illustration (b)  to s.  114 of the\nAct. There  must be  an indication  in\tthe  course  of\t the\njudgment that  the judge  had this  rule in his mind when he\nprepared the judgment\n313\nand if in a given case the judge finds that there is no need\nfor such corroboration he should give reasons for dispensing\nwith  the   necessity  for  such  corroboration.  But  if  a\nconviction is based on the evidence of a prosecutrix without\nany corroboration  it will  not\t be  illegal  on  that\tsole\nground. In  the case  of a  grown-up and married woman it is\nalways\tsafe  to  insist  on  such  corroboration.  Wherever\ncorroboration is  necessary it should be from an independent\nsource but  is not necessary that every part of the evidence\nof the\tvictim\tshould\tbe  confirmed  in  every  detail  by\nindependent evidence.  Such corroboration can be sought from\neither direct  evidence or  circumstantial evidence  or from\nboth. [318 E-H; 319 A-D]\n     Rameshwar v.  State of  Rajasthan,<\/a> [1952]\tS.C.R.\t377;\nGurucharan Singh  v. State  of Haryana, [1973] 2 S.C.R. 197;\nKishan Lal v. State of Haryana,<\/a> [1980] 3 S.C.R. 305; King v.\nBaskerville [1916] 2 K.B. 658, referred to.\n     In the  instant case a reading of the deposition of the\ncomplainant shows that it has a ring of truth around it. Her\nevidence has  been corroborated\t in material  particulars by\nthe evidence of her husband and the other two witnesses. The\nstatement made by the complainant to her husband immediately\nafter the incident is admissible under s. 157 of the Act and\nhas a corroborative value. [319 F-H]\n     The  Mukhiya  has\tnot  given  any\t version  about\t the\nincident but  has merely stated that the complainant and her\nhusband had  not gone  to him to complain. It is significant\nthat his  name figured\tin the complainant as a witness. The\ncomplainant could  not have  taken the risk of including his\nname if\t he had\t not been  actually contacted by her. He was\ncited as  a witness  to\t show  that  immediately  after\t the\noccurrence the\tcomplainant had\t made a\t statement regarding\nthe crime  before him which would be corroborating evidence.\nIt has\tto be  borne in\t mind that he was examined nearly 12\nyears after  the incident  and it  is  a  sufficiently\tlong\nperiod and  particularly for  persons of  easy conscience to\nmake half-hearted statements in courts. In the circumstances\nit is  difficult to  hold that\tthe evidence  of  the  other\nwitnesses before  the court  is in  any way  affected by the\nevidence of  the Mukhiya.  The same criticism applies to the\nevidence of  the  other\t witness  examined  along  with\t the\nMukhiya. The  non-examination  of  the\tpolice\tofficer\t who\ndeclined to  record the\t information said to have been given\nby  the\t complainant  is  found\t to  be\t not  fatal  to\t the\nprosecution. [317 C-H]\n     The complainant and her husband being persons belonging\nto backward  community like  the Santhal  tribe living\tin a\nremote area  could not\tbe expected to know that they should\nrush to\t a doctor. The absence of any injuries on the person\nof the complainant may not by itself discredit the statement\nof the\tcomplainant. Merely  because the  complainant was  a\nhelpless victim\t who was  by force  prevented from  offering\nserious physical  resistance she cannot be disbelieved. [318\nB-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n440 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
314<\/span><\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated the  17th September,  1974 of  the Patna High Court in
\nCrl. Appeal No. 579 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Davendra N. Goburdhan & D. Goburdhan for the Appellant.
\n     S.N. Jha for the Respondent
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed
\nagainst the  judgment dated  September 17,  1974  passed  in
\nCriminal Appeal\t No. 579  of 1969  on the  file of  the High
\nCourt of Patna confirming the conviction of the appellant of
\nthe offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal
\nCode and  the sentence\tof rigorous  imprisonment  for\tfive
\nyears imposed  on him  on December 20,1969 in Sessions Trial
\nNo. 107\t of 1968 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge
\nat Purnea in the State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  was committed  to face  the trial for an
\noffence punishable  under section  376 of  the Indian  Penal
\nCode by\t the order  of the  Munsiff-Magistrate,\t 1st  Class,
\nPurnea on  the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant
\nBarki Devi  (P.W.  3)  before  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,
\nSadar, Purnea  on August  9,1968 who  took cognizance of the
\nOffence\t and  transferred  the\tcase  to  the  file  of\t the
\naforesaid Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
     The allegations  made  in\tthe  complaint\tare  briefly
\nthese: That  on August\t1,  1968  at  about  5.00  P.M,\t the
\ncomplainant, who  was a married woman of about 25 years, was
\nengaged in  the work  of uprooting of the paddy seedlings on
\nher field  situated on\tthe southern  side of  her house  in
\nDhumra Badh  situated  in  Mouza  Dhamdaha,  Police  Station
\nDhamdaha, District  Purnea. There was a canal to the east of
\nthe field  and there  were no  houses nearby.  When she\t was
\nworking on her field the appellant came near her and started
\ncutting jokes  and suggested  that she\tshould\thave  sexual
\nintercourse with  him. On  the complainant protesting at his
\nsuggestion, the appellant suddenly caught hold of her, threw
\nher down  on the  ground, removed  her clothes and committed
\nrape on\t her. On  hearing her  cry for\thelp,  some  persons
\narrived at  the place.\tThe appellant  immediately ran away.
\nThereafter the\tcomplainant went  to her  house and narrated
\nthe  incident\tto  her\t  husband,  Jitrai   (P.W.  4).\t The
\ncomplainant and\t her husband  then went to the local Mukhiya
\nwho asked them to file
\n315<\/span>
\na complaint in the Court. Then they went to the police thana
\nto give\t information about  the crime but the police officer
\ndeclined to  record the\t information as the appellant was an
\ninfluential person.  Then the  complainant went to the court
\non August  8, 1968  to lodge a complaint but as the time for
\nlodging complaint  was over  by the  time the  complaint was
\ndrafted, she  filed it\ton August  9, 1968 in the court. The
\ncomplaint contained the names of some witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  trial the\tcomplainant was\t examined as P.W. 3.
\nShe belongs  to the  Santhal  tribe.  In  her  evidence\t she
\ndescribed the  incident as  disclosed in  her complaint. She
\nstated that  the appellant  forcibly had  sexual intercourse
\nwith her  against her  will. She  stated that on hearing her
\ncry, Sheikh Lafid (P.W. I) came there and on seeing him, the
\nappellant ran  away. She  also stated  that she narrated the
\nincident to  Juman Nadaf  (P.W. 2), Chanda Kisku and Makbool
\nwho also  came there and that she showed the stains of semen
\non her clothes and also the trampling marks on the ground to
\nthem. She  also stated that she narrated the incident before
\nher husband  and the  Mukhiya of  the village.\tShe  further
\nstated that  when she  and her\thusband went  to the  police
\nstation, they  were threatened and driven away by the police
\nofficer there.\tShe also  told about her going to Purnea and
\nlodging the  complaint. Sheikh\tLafid (P.W.  1) corroborated
\nthe evidence  of the  complainant by  deposing that  when he
\nreached the  scene of  occurrence he saw the appellant lying
\non top\tof the body of the complainant. Juman Nadaf (P.W. 2)
\nstated that when he went near the scene of occurrence he saw
\nthe appellant  fleeing away  from there.  He stated that the
\ncomplainant had narrated before him the details of the crime
\ncommitted by  the appellant.  Jitrai (P.W. 4) the husband of
\nthe complainant\t stated that  in the  evening of  the day of
\noccurrence the\tcomplainant told  him about  the  manner  in
\nwhich she  had been  ravished by the appellant and also gave
\nevidence about\this going  to the  Mukhiya and to the police
\nstation\t and   what  happened\tthere  as  narrated  by\t the
\ncomplainant. Rama  Kant Thakur\t(P.W. 5)  was the lawyer who
\ndrafted the  complaint. He has stated that the complaint had
\nbeen prepared under the instructions of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial\tcourt on  a consideration  of  the  material
\nbefore it  found that  the appellant  was guilty of rape and
\naccordingly  convicted\t the  appellant\t  of   the   offence
\npunishable under  section 376  of the  Indian Penal Code and
\nimposed on  him a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five
\nyears. The High Court dismissed
\n316<\/span>
\nthe appeal  filed by  the appellant.  This appeal by special
\nleave is  filed against the judgment of the High Court. When
\nthe appeal  was heard by this Court on March 6, 1980, it was
\nordered that  the trial\t court should record the evidence of
\nthe Mukhiya,  Makbool and  Chanda Kisku\t and to\t submit\t the
\nrecord to  this Court.\tThe evidence  of the  Mukhiya and of
\nMakbool was  accordingly recorded  and has been submitted to
\nthis Court.  Chanda Kisku  is reported to be dead. The other
\ntwo witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is
\napparent that  these two witnesses who had been mentioned as
\nwitnesses in  the  complaint  itself  were  not\t willing  to
\nsupport the  prosecution even  at the  time of\tthe trial as
\notherwise they\twould have  been examined.  It is  not quite
\nstrange that  some witnesses  do turn  hostile but  that  by
\nitself would  not prevent  a court  from finding  an accused
\nguilty if  there is otherwise acceptable evidence in support
\nof the\tprosecution. In\t the instant  case, both  the  trial
\ncourt and  the High  Court have\t believed  evidence  of\t the
\nprosecutrix  and  the  evidence\t of  the  other\t prosecution
\nwitnesses who had been examined at the trial.\n<\/p>\n
     The point for consideration in this case is whether the
\napproach adopted  by the  High Court  and the trial court to
\nthe case  is correct  and whether the material is sufficient
\nto warrant the conviction recorded by them.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case before  us the  complainant has  given her
\nversion of the incident in her deposition and the High Court
\nand the\t trial court have not found it to be unreliable. The
\ncase of\t the appellant,\t however, was  that on\taccount of a
\nland dispute  between one  Mohamed Halim and Mohamed Naiyeem
\non the\tone hand  and himself  on the other which ultimately
\nhad ended  in his  favour this false case had been got filed
\nby them\t through the  complainant and her husband Jitrai who
\nwere working  as servants under them. The non examination of
\nthe Mukhiya  and the  police officer  who  had\tdeclined  to
\nrecord the  information alleged\t to have  been given  by the
\ncomplainant and\t her husband  is stated\t to be\tfatal to the
\nprosecution. It\t is further  stated that in the absence of a
\nmedical examination report given by a doctor after examining
\nthe  person   of  the\tcomplainant  immediately  after\t the
\noccurrence it  was not\tpossible  to  conclude\twhether\t the
\ncomplainant had been raped.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial\tcourt has  negatived the  contentions of the
\nappellant. The\ttrial  court  held  that  it  had  not\tbeen
\nestablished that  the complainant and her husband were under
\nthe thumb of Mohamed Halim and
\n317<\/span>
\nMohamed Naiyeem.  The husband  of the complainant owned some
\nlands and  the complainant and her husband were also working
\nas labourers.  The trial  court\t was  of  opinion  that\t the
\ncomplainant had\t not given  a false  complaint in  order  to
\noblige Mohamed\tHalim and  Mohamed Naiyeem.  It further held
\nthat the  proceeding relating to land filed by Mohamed Halim
\nand Mohamed  Naiyeem was  one instituted  in the  year\t1964
\nnearly four  years before the incident and that there was no
\nimmediate provocation  for them\t to engineer the filing of a
\nfalse  case  against  the  appellant.  The  High  Court\t has
\nconcurred with\tthe  conclusions  of  the  trial  court.  As
\nregards the  non-examination at the trial of the Mukhiya who
\nis now examined pursuant to the order of this Court it is to
\nbe observed  that it  has turned  out to be inconsequential.
\nThe Mukhiya  has now  stated that  the complainant  and\t her
\nhusband had  not gone to him to complain about the incident.
\nHe does\t not give  any version about the incident. It has to
\nbe borne  in mind  that he  was examined nearly twelve years
\nafter the  incident. It is significant that his name figured
\nin the\tcomplaint as  a witness.  The complainant  could not
\nhave taken the risk of including his name if he had not been
\nactually contacted  by her.  The complainant and her husband
\nhave stated  in their  depositions that they had gone to him
\non the date of occurrence. He was cited as a witness to show
\nthat immediately  after the  occurrence the  complainant had
\nmade a\tstatement regarding the crime before him which would
\nbe corroborating  evidence. An interval of twelve years is a
\nsufficiently long  period and  particularly for\t persons  of
\neasy conscience\t to make  half-hearted statements in courts.
\nIn the\tcircumstances it  is  difficult\t to  hold  that\t the
\nevidence of  the other\twitnesses before the court is in any
\nway affected  by the  evidence\tof  the\t Mukhiya.  The\tsame
\ncriticism applies  to the  evidence of\tMakbool who  is\t the
\nother witness  examined in  the year  1980  along  with\t the
\nMukhiya. Makbool’s  evidence is\t that he did not go near the
\nscene of  occurrence on\t the date  on which it is alleged to
\nhave taken  place. As  regards the  non-examination  of\t the
\npoliceman who  declined to  record the\tinformation said  to
\nhave been given by the complainant, it has to be stated that
\nit would  be asking  the complainant  to do  something which
\nwould be  almost impossible  to\t perform.  How\tmany  police
\nofficers who  have in  fact not\t performed their  duty would
\ncome before  court as  witnesses and  admit  that  they\t had
\nfailed to  discharge their  duty  ?  The  court\t may  safely
\npresume\t that\tnotwithstanding\t the   allegation   of\t the
\ncomplainant being  true she  would not\thave  even  able  to
\nsecure the evidence of such a negligent police official. The
\nfact remains the complainant has referred to
\n318<\/span>
\nthis in\t her complaint\ton the very next day and she and her
\nhusband ran  a grave  risk in  making such  an allegation of
\ndereliction of\tduty against  the police  in the  complaint.
\nNothing however\t turns on  the non-examination\tof the\tsaid
\npolice official in this case. In so far as non-production of
\na medical examination report and the clothes which contained
\nsemen, the  trial courts  has observed\tthat the complainant
\nbeing a\t woman who  had given  birth to four children it was
\nlikely that  there would  not have  been any injuries on her
\nprivate parts. The complainant and her husband being persons
\nbelonging to  a backward  community like  the Santhal  tribe
\nliving in  a remote  area could not be expected to know that
\nthey should  rush to  a doctor.\t In fact the complainant has
\ndeposed that she had taken bath and washed her clothes after
\nthe incident.  The absence  of any injuries on the person of
\nthe complainant may not by itself discredit the statement of
\nthe  complainant.  Merely  because  the\t complainant  was  a
\nhelpless victim\t who was  by force  prevented from  offering
\nserious physical  resistance she  cannot be  disbelieved. In
\nthis situation\tthe non-production of a medical report would
\nnot be\tof much\t consequence if the other evidence on record
\nis believable.\tIt is, however, nobody’s case that there was
\nsuch a report and it had been withheld.\n<\/p>\n
     A reading\tof the\tdeposition of  the complainant shows
\nthat it\t has a\tring of\t truth around it. Section 133 of the
\nIndian Evidence\t Act says  that an  accomplice\tshall  be  a
\ncompetent witness against an accused person and a conviction
\nis  not\t  illegal  merely   because  it\t proceeds  upon\t the
\nuncorroborated testimony  of an\t accomplice. But the rule of
\npractice is  that it is prudent to look for corroboration of
\nthe evidence of an accomplice by other independent evidence.
\nThis rule  of practice\tis based  on human experience and is
\nincorporated in\t illustration (b)  to  section\t114  of\t the
\nIndian\tEvidence  Act  which  says  that  an  accomplice  is
\nunworthy of  credit unless  he is  corroborated in  material
\nparticulars. Even  though a victim of rape cannot be treated
\nas an  accomplice, on  account of  a long  line of  judicial
\ndecision rendered in our country over a number of years, the
\nevidence of the victim in a rape case is treated almost like
\nthe evidence of an accomplice requiring corroboration. (Vide
\nRameshwar v.  The State of Rajasthan,<\/a>(1) Gurucharan Singh v.
\nState of  Haryana(2) and Kishan Lal v. State of Haryana).<\/a>(3)
\nIt is accepted by the Indian courts
\n319<\/span>
\nthat the  rule of corroboration in such cases ought to be as
\nenunciated by  Lord Reading  C.J. in King v. Baskerville.(4)
\nWhere the case is tried with the aid of a jury as in England
\nit is  necessary that  a Judge\tshould draw the attention of
\nthe  jury   to\tthe   above  rule   of\tpractice   regarding
\ncorroboration wherever\tsuch corroboration  is\tneeded.\t But
\nwhere a\t case is  tried by a judge alone, as it is now being
\ndone in\t India, there must be an indication in the course of
\nthe judgment  that the\tjudge had this rule in his mind when
\nhe prepared  the judgment  and if  in a given case the judge
\nfinds that there is no need for such corroboration he should
\ngive reasons  for dispensing  with the\tnecessity  for\tsuch
\ncorroboration. But  if a conviction is based on the evidence
\nof a  prosecutrix without  any corroboration  it will not be
\nillegal on  that sole  ground. In the case of a grown up and
\nmarried\t woman\t it  is\t  always  safe\tto  insist  on\tsuch
\ncorroboration. Wherever corroboration is necessary it should
\nbe from\t an independent\t source but it is not necessary that
\nevery part of the evidence of the victim should be confirmed
\nin very\t detail by  independent evidence. Such corroboration
\ncan be\tsought from either direct evidence or circumstantial
\nevidence or  from both.\t The trial  court has  in  the\tcase
\nbefore us  found that  the evidence  of the  complainant had
\nbeen corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of
\nSheikh Lafid (P.W. 1), Juman Nadaf (P.W. 2) and Jitrai (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
4) the\thusband of  the complainant. The High Court also has
\nacted on the evidence of these witnesses. Sheikh Lafid (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
1) has\tstated that  he saw the appellant on the body of the
\ncomplainant and that the complainant had also told him about
\nthe crime.  Juman Nadaf\t (P.W. 2)  has stated  that when  he
\nheard the  cry of the complainant at the time of occurrence,
\nhe saw the appellant fleeing away from that place. The trial
\ncourt and  the High  Court have not found any good ground to
\ndiscard their  testimony. Jitrai (P.W. 4) has told the court
\nthat the complainant had mentioned to him all the details of
\nthe incident  within a short while after it took place. Rama
\nKant Thakur  (P.W 5.),\tthe lawyer who drafted the complaint
\nhas stated that he had prepared the complaint which contains
\nall the particulars of the offence under the instructions of
\nthe complainant.  Apart from  the evidence  of Sheikh  Lafid
\n(P.W. 1)  and Juman  Nadaf (P.W. 2) about what they saw, the
\nstatement made by the complainant to her husband immediately
\nafter the  incident is\tadmissible under  section 157 of the
\nIndian Evidence\t Act and  has a\t corroborative value.  After
\nconsidering carefully the entire material
\n320<\/span>
\nbefore us  including the  evidence of the witnesses examined
\npursuant to  the order\tmade by\t this Court  earlier in\t the
\nlight of  the submissions made at the Bar we are of the view
\nthat the  judgment of  the High\t Court does not call for any
\ninterference under Article 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t therefore, fails  and it  is dismissed. The
\nappellant who  is on  bail is  directed to  surrender and to
\nundergo the remaining part of the sentence imposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n321<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 911, 1983 SCR (2) 312 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: SHEIKH ZAKIR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/06\/1983 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) CITATION: 1983 […]<\/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-240951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 - 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\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-07T11:37:35+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T11:37:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2749,\"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\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\",\"name\":\"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T11:37:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 - 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\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-07T11:37:35+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983","datePublished":"1983-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T11:37:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983"},"wordCount":2749,"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\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983","name":"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T11:37:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheikh-zakir-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-june-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheikh Zakir vs State Of Bihar on 2 June, 1983"}]},{"@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\/240951","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=240951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}