{"id":24281,"date":"2002-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002"},"modified":"2018-06-26T07:56:28","modified_gmt":"2018-06-26T02:26:28","slug":"state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002<\/div>\n
Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, N. Santosh Hegde<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  78 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/01\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nUMESH C. BANERJEE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2002 (1) SCR 208<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
BANERJEE, J. While it is true that the postmortem report by itself is not a
\nsubstantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting
\nthe postmortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The
\nsignificance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis-a-vis the injuries
\nappearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon
\ntherefor and it would then be the prosecutor’s duty and obligation to have
\nthe corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
These two criminal appeals being Crl. Appeal No. 78 of 1999 and Crl. Appeal
\nNo. 79 of 1999 arising from the same Judgment of the High Court against
\nthat of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar in Sessions Case No.
\n80 of 1992 in which (1) Bhajan Lal (2) Rai Sahab, (3) Ram Singh and (4) Ram
\nKumar faced trial. All the accused faced charge under Section 302 IPC read
\nwith Section 201 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar by his
\nJudgment dated 9th\/10th August, 1995 convicted Bhajan Lai under Section 302
\nIPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, whereas the accused Rai
\nSahab, Ram Singh and Ram Kumar were convicted under Section 302\/149 IPC and
\nsentenced in the manner alike. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did
\nnot convict any of the accused under Section 201 IPC by reason of the
\nconviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The case of the
\nprosecution however, runs as below:-\n<\/p>\n
Complainant-Budh Ram is the brother of Manphool (deceased). They are
\nresidents of village Chinder. On 22.1.1992, Budh Ram and Manphool went to
\nthe temple at about 6 a.m. and returned at about 6.15 a.m. When Manphool
\nwas ahead of Budh Ram by about 10 paces and had reached near the house of
\nKishan Lal, a jeep RJl-3407 was there and Rich Pal, a resident of Chinder
\nand Appellant Bhajan Lal were standing near it, armed with guns. Appellant
\nRai Sahab was sitting on the driver seat, while Appellant Ram Kumar and Ram
\nSingh alias Singha were also sitting by his side on the front seat. Accused
\nRam Kumar and Ram Singh, on seeing Manphool, stated that Manphool had won
\nmoney in gambling dishonestly from Ram Singh, and that he should be taught
\na lesson for dishonesty. Rich Pal and Bhajan Lal fired a shot each from
\ntheir respective guns, and as a result of receiving the shots, Manphool
\nfell down. Complainant-Budh Ram took shelter in the temple out of fear.
\nDholu Ram, son of Manphool on hearing the report of the gunshot, reached
\nthere. Prosecution case further has been that immediately thereafter Ram
\nKumar and Singha alighted from the jeep and all four of them tied the body
\nin a blanket and put the same in the jeep and then went away in their jeep
\nafter threatening the persons present at site. Complainant-Budh Ram
\ninformed his brother -Ranjit and thereafter chased the jeep in a truck.
\nThey made a thorough search on the canals and roads at Badopal and Bhola
\netc. but did not find any clue. Therefore, Complainant-Budh Ram along with
\nDholu Ram went to Agroha Police Station, to lodge the report. The statement
\nof Budh Ram was recorded at 3.05 p.m., which formed the basis of the FIR
\n(Ex. PF).\n<\/p>\n
The Station House Officer SI Kishan Dutt being PW-12 in the examination-in-
\nchief, inter alia, stated as below :<\/p>\n
“On 22.1.1992 I was posted as SHO P.S. Agroha. On that day, Budh Ram came
\nto me in the police station. He was accompanied by Dholu Ram, He made
\nstatement before me upon which I recorded FIR Ex.PF which was read over and
\nexplained to him to which he signed in token of its correctness. I recorded
\npolice proceedings on it, handed over one copy of FIR to him and obtained
\nhis signature. Then I left for the post and reached the place of occurrence
\nalongwith Budh Ram and Dholu Ram. I lifted blood stained earth, 2-3 pieces
\nof bones from the spot, which were converted into separate sealed parcels,
\nSeal of KD was used, Seal after use was given to Dholu Ram PW. I lifted
\nblood stained earth Ex.P. 12 and three pieces of bones Exs. P.13\/1-3 vide
\nrecovery memo Ex.PG, attested by Dholu Ram and Budh Ram. I prepared rough
\nsite plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PR, recorded statements of Dholu
\nand Budh Ram. I raided the houses of the accused but they were found
\nabsconding. I searched for the dead-body in the canal, I stayed for the
\nnight in village Budha Khera. On 23.1.92 I deposited the case property with
\nthe MHC. On 26.1.92 I along with Ranjit and Dholu Ram was going in search
\nof the accused and dead body. At Chable minor (Mori) Yad Ram met me and
\ntold me that he along with Atma Ram has recovered dead body of Manphool
\nfrom the Chuli Bagrian minor near the field of Ram Pat. Then I reached
\nthere I held inquest proceedings on the dead body of Manphool and prepared
\ninquest report Exs.PD\/1.1 recorded statements of Dholu, Ranjit, Yad Ram and
\nAtma Ram in the inquest proceedings I hand over the dead body along with
\napplication for post-mortem examination Ex.PD to constable Sadhu Ram and HC
\nJagdish.”\n<\/p>\n
It is at this stage it would be convenient to note the postmortem report
\nwhich reads as below :-\n<\/p>\n
“It was a dead-body of a man, moderately built and nourished, necked
\nwithout any belongings with mouth and eyes closed. Rigor mortis was absent
\nin all the limbs. The body was wet and smeared with mud, frass and leaves.
\nThe skin of the hands was swollen and was sodden. The nails and the hair
\ncould be pulled out easily. A tattooed mark “Manphool” was present on the
\nanterior aspect of the right fore-arm and also found the following
\ninjuries. The height of the dead-body was 5 feet 11 inches :-\n<\/p>\n
1.      A crushed wound posterio and right lateral aspect of skull of
\nirregular shape and size was 10 cms anterio posteriorly and 12 cms side to
\nside involving the skin, sub cutaneous tissues and underlying bones which
\nwere right and left parietal bone, right temporal and occipital. Most of
\nthe brain matter was absent except a few brain matter left in the posterior
\noranial fosse. Pieces of bones involved were absent.\n<\/p>\n
2.      An oval punctured would in the left scapular area of the chest
\n(However I have written abdomen by mistake). Measuring 1.5. cms x 1 cm with
\na collar of abrasion all around the wound. The direction of the wound was
\noblique going downward and forward. On dissection and 4th rib was fractured
\nin the middle. The left lung was lacerated and congested. Clotted blood was
\npresent in left pleural cavity. Few pellet and foreign body were recovered.
\nAnterior wall of pleural cavity was also congested and there was sub
\ncontaneous harmorrhage in the left memory area.\n<\/p>\n
3.      A punctured would on left side of abdomen 8 cms away towards left
\nfrom the umbilicus. Omentum and few lops of intenstines were coming out of
\nthe wound. The wound was showing a collar of abrasion along the whole
\nmargins of the wound. Black tattooing was present around the wound. On
\ndissection there was congestion in the skin Sub Coetaneous tissue and huge
\nblood was present in the peritoneum cavity. Omentum was congested and loop
\nof small intestines were showing the congestion. Spleen was ruptured. Few
\npellets of fire-arm and foreign body was recovered. Small intestines showed
\nsemi digested small amount of food which was semi liquid\/semi-digested.”\n<\/p>\n
The facts shortly put thus reveal the date of occurrence being 22.1.1992 at
\n6.15 a.m. and the body was recovered on 26.1.1992 by one Atma Ram and Yad
\nRam. Atma Ram stated :\n<\/p>\n
“On 26\/27 of January, 1993 i.e. about two years and two months ago, I and
\nYad Ram were searching for the dead-body of Manphool. We reached Chuli
\nminor near the field of Raipat. There we saw a dead-body floating in the
\nChuli Minor. That dead-body was that of Manphool. We took out that dead-
\nbody from Chuli minor (a canal). Name of Manphool was tattooed on he hand
\nof the dead-body. I had also identified the dead-body by seeing the face.
\nThe skull was empty (khokhli), as the skull was in torn condition. Yad Ram
\nthen left to the Police Station for giving intimation. 1 stayed at the spot
\nnear the dead-body. Yad Ram brought the Police. Dholu and Ranjeet also
\naccompanied the police. Police prepared the inquest report of the dead-body
\nand then recorded my statement.\n<\/p>\n
On 13.2.92 I and Ranjeet were going to the P.S. Agroha to enquire if Singha
\nalias Ram Singh had been arrested or not. Dead-body was found 18\/19 days
\nprior to our going to the police station. Thanedar had met us at the Bus
\nStand of village Khara Kheri. There a secret information was received by
\nSub Inspector (Thanedar) that accused Ram Singh was coming from the side of
\nvillage Chinder. In the meantime a four-wheeler came there from which
\naccused Ram Singh had alighted. On our pointing out SI apprehended Ram
\nSingh now present in the court. Upon interrogation by the police he (Ram
\nSingh) disclosed that 18\/19 days ago he along with four other persons after
\ncommitting the murder of Manphool Singh had thrown his dead-body in the
\ncanal and before throwing the same he had removed a golden ring from the
\nfinger of the dead-body of Manphool and the same was conceded by him at his
\nhouse in the Niwar (strings) of the Palang (bed) and could get the same
\nrecovered. In this regard his statement Ex.PQ was recorded which was thumb
\nmarked by Singh accused and attested by me and Ranjeet Singh. Thereafter
\naccused led the Police party in his house situated at village Chinder and
\nthen got recovered the ring. (At this stage, a sealed Parcel bearing seals
\nof SS has been broken open and ring taken out there-from). The ring is
\nEx.P. 12. It is the same ring which was got recovered from the palang as
\nstated above and the same was made into a sealed parcel and taken into
\npossession vide recovery memo. Ex.PQ\/1, attested by me and Ranjeet.”\n<\/p>\n
It is on this state of evidence, the High Court has passed an Order of
\nacquittal so far as Ram Singh is concerned and as such partly allowed the
\nappeal. In its Judgment, the High Court recorded the reasoning for such an
\nOrder of acquittal of one of the accused persons as below :\n<\/p>\n
“………The evidence of PW-12 Kishan Dutt shows that accused-Ram Singh
\nalias Singha was arrested only on 13.2.1992. But Ex.PL\/2 also shows that
\nRam Singh alias Singha had allegedly thumb-marked the disclosure statement
\non 29.1.1992. If accused-Ran Singh alias Singha was arrested only on
\n13.2.1992, then he could not have made a disclosure statement on 29.1.1992.
\nFurther Ex.PQ is the alleged disclosure statement of Ram Singh alias Singha
\nmade on 13.2.1992. Atma Ram (PW-11) also stated in his evidence that Ram
\nSingh alias Singha was arrested on 13.2.1992 and that he made the
\ndisclosure statement (EX.PQ) in pursuance of which the ring (Ex. P.12) was
\nrecovered. This inconsistency casts a lot of doubt as the involvement of
\naccused-Ram Singh. Even according to prosecution, he was only sitting in
\nthe jeep and had raised a lalkara that Manphool should be taught a lesson.
\nIt is further alleged that he along with 3 of the accused wrapped Manphool
\nin a blanket and put him in the jeep. But in view of that we have pointed
\nout above, we are of the view that it is wholly unsafe to convict this
\naccused on the basis of the available material and therefore, we are of the
\nview that he (Ram Singh alias Singha) should be acquitted, giving him the
\nbenefit of doubt……”\n<\/p>\n
Incidentally, the factual score depicts that Rich Pal had expired during
\nthe course of trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and having
\nregard to the death of Rich Pal, the conviction and sentence pertaining to
\ntwo other accused persons were maintained by the High Court and the present
\nappeal by the accused persons pertain thereto. The State Government, also
\nhowever, being aggrieved by the Order of acquittal moved this Court in
\nappeal. Since these appeals arise out of the same Judgment, appeals were
\nconsolidated and were heard together.\n<\/p>\n
The principal contention raised in support of the appeal filed on behalf of
\nthe accused persons has been that medical evidence as is available on
\nrecord completely demolished the prosecution case. Let us, therefore, have
\na look at the medical evidence as is available on record. The postmortem
\nreport has already been noticed above and as such we need not dilate on the
\ninjuries inflicted on the body of the deceased what is required presently
\nfor our purpose herein. Dr. R.K. Kataria conducted the postmortem
\nexamination on the body of the deceased on 27.1.1992. In his evidence he
\nhas been rather specific that injuries No. 1,2 and 3 were the result of
\nthree independent shots though, however, possibility of injury No. 1 being
\ncaused by some heavy weapon cannot be ruled out. As regards direction of
\ninjury No. 2 Dr. Kataria explained that the nature of the injury itself
\nindicates that it was caused by weapon from above to downward and injuries
\nNos. 2 and 3 were possible by a firearm weapon within a range of 3 ft. :
\nwhereas injury No. 2 Dr. Kataria stated could be caused by a firearm from
\nbehind, injury No. 3 is possible by firearm only from the front side. Dr.
\nKataria, however, went on to depose :\n<\/p>\n
“Since I had X-rayed injury No. 1, therefore, I did not think it proper to
\ngive any details about nature of injury being ante mortem or post or
\nwhether is attributed in causing the death. 1 also did not mention the
\nnature of weapon as no such column was there in the Performa prepared for
\npost-mortem report. Therefore, 1 also did not give the nature of weapon
\nused for injuries no. 2 and 3 also. In fact I had referred the dead-body
\nfor X-ray examination of injury no. 1 in order to ascertain the weapon
\nused. It is correct that X-ray report was not shown the pieces of bones in
\nthis case. It is correct that my opinion given in the post-mortem report
\nthe injuries nos. 2 and 3 were sufficient to cause death due to shock and
\nhemorrhage is wrong. Volunteered in fact mentioning of injury no. 1 omitted
\nI had referred the X-ray examination of injury no. 1. It is incorrect to
\nsuggest that I did not mention about injury no. 1 while giving opinion
\nabout the cause of death as I wanted to toe the line of police.”\n<\/p>\n
A bare perusal of the evidence of the doctor depicts three specific
\nfeatures, namely, (i) Dr. Kataria had referred to have injury No. 1 X-
\nrayed; (ii) nature of the weapon used by the accused persons has not been
\nmentioned, as no such column was there in the Performa prepared for
\npostmortem report and as such Dr. Kataria did not given the nature of the
\nweapon used for injuries. As a matter of fact only for the ascertainment of
\nthe weapon used, the body of the deceased was referred for X-ray. The X-ray
\nreport, however, was not shown to the doctor till the date of examination,
\nor even produced before the court; (iii) Dr. Kataria was also not shown the
\npieces of bones in the case. These three factors go a long way in support
\nof the defence contention that it was a blind murder and thus a false
\nimplication.\n<\/p>\n
The state of evidence available on record has been quoted extensively in
\nthis Judgment, which could otherwise be also avoided but has been so done
\nso as to appreciate the trustworthiness or the credibility of the
\nprosecution case. Medical evidence points out an injury having a downward
\nstint : medical evidence points out two several gun shots injuries one from
\nthe front and one from the back -the eye-witnesses account does not,
\nhowever, obtain any support from the medical evidence rather runs counter
\nthereto. A definite evidence of availability of some bones at the place of
\noccurrence was admittedly not shown to the postmortem doctor. Eye-
\nwitnesses’ account (PW-8) Budh Ram records that after giving the lalkara
\naccused Bhajan Lai fired upon his brother Manphool and Rich Pal accused had
\nfired one shot upon his brother. Rich Pal accused had since died and the
\nbrother on receiving the firearm injuries fell down on the spot.
\nImmediately, thereafter an alarm was raised by the eye-witness upon which
\naccused Bhajan Lai and Rich Pal threatened him that in case of any alaram
\nthey would also kill the PW-8 by reason wherefore the latter took the
\nshelter by the side of the Mandir. The witness went on to record that after
\nManphool, his brother, fell down and all the accused except Rai Sahab
\nwrapped him in a blanket and put in the jeep and the accused Rai Sahab then
\ndrove the jeep. The witness thereafter stated that :-\n<\/p>\n
“…….We then i.e. Dholu Ram, Ranjit and myself followed the accused in a
\ntruck. We went to the canal of Badopal. We also saw the accused on the
\nroads but they were not visible. We went on the bank of canal of Badopal.
\nWe also went to Bhoda, Sarangpur, Kherampur. Kohli and other roads and then
\non the canal but could not find the accused and the jeep and Manphool.
\nUltimately, I lodged report Ex.PF in P.S. Agroha. In this regard my
\nsignature are there on FIR Ex.PF. The contents of the FIR were read over to
\nme and after admitting the same to be correct put my signatures.\n<\/p>\n
Police then came to the place of occurrence and lifted three pieces of
\nbones, blood stained earth. Both were made into parcel and then sealed.
\nBoth were sealed separately seal after use was handed over to me. Both the
\nparcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG.” (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
Significantly, the prosecutor produced the bundle containing three pieces
\nof bones, which are identified by PW-8 as the same pieces of bones, which
\nwere under seizure by the police authorities at the place of occurrence –
\nthese bones, however, were not produced and placed for examination before
\nthe postmortem doctor as to whether they can be co-related with that of the
\ndeceased person. The Serological Report of these bones did not see the
\nlight neither the Ballistic Experts’ Report as to the nature of the weapons
\nused. It is a duty cast on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
\naccused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. High Court has dealt with the
\nissue that the thumb marked disclosure statement of Ram Singh dated
\n29.1.1992 casts a lot of doubt as to the involvement of accused Ram Singh
\nsince Ram Singh was arrested only on 13.2.1992 as such disclosure statement
\nof 29.1.1992 cannot be had – it is this inconsistency which was noticed by
\nthe High Court and Ram Singh, at whose instance the ring was supposed to
\nhave been recovered, stands acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
\nThe High Court, however, has not considered the medical evidical vis-a-vis
\nthe eye-witnesses’ account – the conflict and inconsistency between the two
\nalso raises a very great suspicion in the mind of the Court : credibility
\nof the prosecution case stands at zero level by reason of the conclusion of
\nthe High Court and accordingly benefit of doubt to Ram Singh. It is the
\nsame prosecutor, which has recovered the pieces of bones, had it exhibited
\nbut not produced before the postmortem doctor, who would otherwise be able
\nto identify the bones as that of the deceased. This failure of the
\nprosecution, in our view, cannot be taken as a mere omission but a failure,
\nwhich would go a long way in the matter of reposing confidence thereon.\n<\/p>\n
While it is true that the law is well settled in regard to the issue that
\nin an appeal against conviction for the offence of murder Supreme Court
\nwould be rather slow to intervene in the event of there being a concurrent
\nfinding of fact but it is equally settled that in the event the finding,
\nwhich suffers from the vice of perversity of any fundamental rules or even
\na definite procedural injustice going to the root of the prosecution case
\nquestion of the Apex Court being slow in intervention would not arise. In
\nthis context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Arjun
\nMarik and Ors. v. State of Bihar,<\/a> [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 372 wherein this Court
\nin paragraph 15 stated as below :-\n<\/p>\n
“15. We are also aware of the fact that as a rule of practice, in appeal
\nagainst conviction for offence of murder Supreme Court is slow to disturb a
\nconcurrent finding of fact unless it is shown that the finding is
\nmanifestly erroneous, clearly unreasonable, unjust or illegal or violative
\nof some fundamental rule of procedure or natural justice. Further it has
\nalso to be remembered that in a murder case which is cruel and revolting it
\nbecomes all the more necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence
\nwith more than ordinary care lest the shocking nature of the crime might
\ninduct instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of
\nthe evidence in law.”\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment under appeal admittedly does not contain a whisper even
\npertaining to the contradictions between eye-witnesses’ account and the
\nmedical evidence. In the contextual facts and as noticed above, medical
\nevidence runs positively counter to the eye-witnesses’ account rendering
\nthe ocular testimony not being dependable or trustworthy. There is no
\ncredible evidence on record. It is significant that all the so-called eye-
\nwitnesses were produced in Court by the police from its custody in handcuff
\ncondition and it is only on the witness box that the handcuffs were
\nreleased and taken up from the body of the person. All of them are under-
\ntrail prisoners being involved in a murder trail. The Court thus has to
\nscrutinise its evidence with a little bit of caution and scrutiny so as to
\njudge their veracity. Admittedly all the supposed eye-witnesses are
\nrelations of the deceased. As such they fall within a category of
\ninterested witness. It is not that the evidence ought to be discredited by
\nreason of the witness being simply an interested witness but in that event
\nthe Court will be rather strict in its scrutiny as to the acceptability of
\nsuch an evidence. High Court has principally relied on the 161 statements
\nand the contradictions available on the record have not been taken note of.
\nIn our view this is a clear error on the part of the High Court. Some
\nweapons have been seized alongwith the cartridges and it has been stated
\nthat such recovery was effected in terms of the disclosure statements.
\nBefore this Court it has been strongly urged that the same is in
\ncontravention of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, Section 27,
\nthough provides an exception, but the Court should always be vigilant about
\nthe circumvention of its provision – “Sarkar on Evidence (15th Edition)”
\nhas the following to state on Section 27:-\n<\/p>\n
“………The protection afforded by the wholesome provisions of ss. 25 and
\n26 is sought to be whittled down by the police by their ingenuity in
\nmanipulating the record of the information given by the accused in the
\ncase-diary in such a manner as to make it appear that it led to the
\ndiscovery of some facts although the police might have made such discovery
\nfrom other sources. When a fact is once discovered from information
\nreceived from another source, there can be no discovery again even if any
\ninformation relating thereto is subsequently extracted from the accused. A
\ndevise sometimes adopted by the police is to stage a scene and take the
\naccused to the place where the things discovered lay buried or hidden and
\nrequire him to make a search for them at the spot indicated to the accused,
\nor sometimes the articles are first produced before the accused and
\nthereafter statements purporting to have been made by him about the so-
\ncalled discovery are recorded. Court should be watchful that the protection
\nafforded by ss. 25 and 26 should not be dependent on the ingenuity of the
\npolice officer in composing the narrative conveying the information
\nrelating to the alleged recovery of a fact.”\n<\/p>\n
In Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, 74 Ind. App 65 : AIR (1947) PC 67, the
\nPrivy Council considered the provision of Section 27 of Evidence Act and
\nobserved :-\n<\/p>\n
“It is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within the section as
\nequivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place
\nfrom which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to
\nthis, and the information given must related distinctly to this fact.
\nInformation as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is
\nnot related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
\nInformation supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife
\nconcealed in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of a
\nknife : knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of
\nthe fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his
\nknowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission
\nof the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the
\nstatement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are
\ninadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the
\nhouse of the informant.” (p. 77 of Ind App): (at p. 70 of AIR).”\n<\/p>\n
The observations stand accepted by this Court in Prabhoo v. State of Uttar
\nPradesh, AIR (1963) SC 1113.\n<\/p>\n
Let us however, at this stage, analyse the evidentiary value of such
\ndiscoveries.\n<\/p>\n
(i) Licensed double barrel 12 bore gun bearing No. 70002-1978 along with
\nlicense No. 240-VII\/Fatehabad (valid upto 2.8.1992) along with three .12
\nbore cartridges and one fired cartridge case of .12 bore – this recovery
\nmemo stands witnessed by Dholu Ram (PW-10) and Budh Ram (PW-8).\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Recovery memo of Jeep No. RJI-3407 – this recovery stands witnessed by
\nDholu Ram and Budh Ram, PWs 10 and 8.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Pointing out memo – Rai Sahib, Ram Kanwar, Rich Pal and Bhajan Lal
\nled the police party to Badipal Canal, at Chable Mori and pointed out the
\nplace where on the left bank of the canal the jeep had been parked and
\nthereafter the dead body was put into the canal : this pointing out memo
\nalso stands witnesses by Dholu Ram and Budh Ram.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Four discloure statements of Bhajan Lal, Ram Kanwar, Rich Pal and Rai
\nSahab accused persons and all the four statements stand witnessed by Dholu
\nRam and Budh Ram, PWs 10 and 8.\n<\/p>\n
(v) Recovery memo of blood stained earth lifted from left bank of Badipal
\nCanal near the bridge of Chable Mori stands witnessed by Dholu Ram and Budh
\nRam.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Disclosure statement\/memo of the accused Ram Singh : while in the
\nprocess of throwing the dead body of Manphool in the canal, a golden ring
\nwas removed from his person and that ring has been kept concealed though
\nled to the subsequent recovery of the same. This statement however stands
\nwitnessed by Ranjit and Atma Ram (PW-11).\n<\/p>\n
(vii) Recovery memo of golden ring in terms of the disclosure statement
\nwitnessed by Ranjit and Atma Ram (PW-11).\n<\/p>\n
Ranjit happens to be the brother of Manphool, the deceased : the memos
\nmentioned in Nos. 1 -5 are all dated 29.1.1992 whereas 6th and 7th memos
\nare dated 13.2.1992″.\n<\/p>\n
Two of the recoveries, as noticed above, thus stood witnessed by Atma Ram :
\nlet us briefly, at this stage, refer to the deposition of Atma Ram noticed
\nherein before to the extent that on 26\/27.1.1992 when Atma Ram was
\nsearching for the dead body of Manphool, he reached Chable more and saw a
\ndead body floating – the dead body was then lifted to the bank of the canal
\nand whereas Atma Ram was keeping a watch, Yad Ram was sent to inform the
\npolice. The police came along with Dholu and Ranjit. On the second occasion
\nagain Atma Ram and Ranjit enquired, after having discovered that though the
\ndead body was recovered some time back, whether Ram Singh had been arrested
\nor not -when Thanedar met them and in the meantime a four wheeler came from
\nwhich the accused Ram Singh had alighted and on the pointing out by Atma
\nRam, Ram Singh was arrested and thereupon interrogation started by the
\npolice, which made Ram Singh to disclose the commission of the offence and
\nthrowing up of the dead body in the canal as also removal of the golden
\nring from the finger of the dead body and subsequent recovery thereof, as
\nnoticed herein before. The ring was identified. The High Court, however,
\nthought it fit to acquit Ram Singh by reason of discrepancy in the records.\n<\/p>\n
These are, however, the evidence available on record for the recoveries
\neffected upon disclosure being made. The High Court obviously did not place
\nany reliance on the evidence of Atma Ram as otherwise no acquittal could
\nhave been ordered for Ram Singh.\n<\/p>\n
Significantly all disclosures, and even arrests have been made in the
\npresence of three specific persons, namely, Budh Ram, Dholu Ram and Atma
\nRam – no independent witness could be found in the aforesaid context – is
\nit deliberate or is it sheer coincidence – this is where the relevance of
\nthe passage from Sarkar on Evidence comes on. The ingenuity devised by the
\nprosecutor knew no bounds – Can it be attributed to be sheer coincidence ?
\nWithout any further consideration of the matter, one thing can be more or
\nless with certain amount of conclusiveness be stated these at least create
\na doubt or suspicion as to whether the same has been tailor-made or not and
\nin the even of there being such a doubt, the benefit must and ought to be
\ntransposed to the accused persons. The trial Court addressed itself on
\nscrutiny of evidence and came to a conclusion that the evidence available
\non record is trustworthy but the High Court acquitted one of the accused
\npersons on the basis of some discrepancy between the oral testimony and the
\ndocumentary evidence as noticed fully herein before. The oral testimony
\nthus stands tainted with suspicion. If that be the case, then there is no
\nother evidence apart from the omni present Budh Ram and Dholu Ram, who
\nhowever are totally interested witnesses. While it is true that legitimacy
\nof interested witnesses cannot be discredited in any way nor termed to be a
\nsuspect witness but the evidence before being ascribed to be trustworthy or
\nbeing capable of creating confidence, the Court has to consider the same
\nupon proper scrutiny. In our view, the High Court was wholly in error in
\nnot considering the evidence available on record in its proper perspective.
\nThe other aspect of the matter is in regard to the defence contention that
\nManphool was missing from village for about 2\/3 days and is murdered on
\n21.1.1992 itself. There is defence evidence on record by DW-3 Raja Ram that
\nManphool was murdered on 21.1.1992. The High Court rejected the defence
\ncontention by reason of the fact that it was not suggested to Budh Ram or
\nDholu Ram that the murder had taken place on 21.1.1992 itself and DW-3 Raja
\nRam had even come to attend the condolence and it is by reason therefor
\nRaja Ram’s evidence was not accepted. Incidentally be it noted that the
\nevidence tendered by defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a
\ntainted one – the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and
\nequal respect as that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and the
\ntrustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par
\nwith that of the prosecution. Rejection of the defence case on the basis of
\nthe evidence tendered by defence witness has been effected rather casually
\nby the High Court. Suggestion was there to the prosecution’s witnesses in
\nparticular PW-10 Dholu Ram that his father Manphool was missing for about
\n2\/3 days prior to the day of the occurrence itself – what more is expected
\nof the defence case : a doubt or a certainty – jurisprudentially a doubt
\nwould be enough : when such a suggestion has been made prosecution has to
\nbring on record the availability of the deceased during those 2\/3 days with
\nsome independent evidence. Rejection of the defence case only by reason
\nthereof is far too strict and rigid a requirement for the defence to meet –
\nit is prosecutor’s duty to prove beyond all reasonable doubts and not the
\ndefence to prove its innocence – this itself is a circumstance, which
\ncannot but be termed to be suspicious in nature.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that the High
\nCourt fell into a manifest error in coming to a conclusion as reflected in
\nthe Judgment under appeal and which thus cannot be sustained. The appeal
\n(Criminal Appeal No. 79\/1999), therefore, succeeds and is allowed and the
\nappellants be released from the custody, if not required in any other
\nproceeding.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the decision above, Criminal Appeal No. 78\/1999 (State of
\nHaryana v. Ram Singh)<\/a> fails and stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
C.A. No. 78\/99 dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
C.A. No. 79\/99 allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, N. Santosh Hegde CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 78 of 1999 PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT: RAM SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/01\/2002 BENCH: UMESH C. BANERJEE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 (1) SCR 208 The Judgment […]<\/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-24281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 - 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\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-26T02:26:28+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T02:26:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5585,\"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\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T02:26:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 - 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\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-26T02:26:28+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T02:26:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002"},"wordCount":5585,"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\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002","name":"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T02:26:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-ram-singh-on-15-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002"}]},{"@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\/24281","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=24281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}