{"id":242892,"date":"2007-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-09T10:12:04","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T04:42:04","slug":"mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: B Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, B. Sudershan Reddy<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  402 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nMahmood & Anr\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nAltamas Kabir & B. Sudershan Reddy\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
B.Sudershan Reddy, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis is an appeal by special leave preferred by
\nthe appellants  Mahmood and Khaliq.  The appellant
\nMahmood has been convicted for the offence punishable
\nunder Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and
\nsentenced to imprisonment for life.  He has been also
\nconvicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for 1= year.  The second
\nappellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
\nunder Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced
\nto undergo life imprisonment.  He has been further
\nconvicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo one year rigorous imprisonment and further
\nconvicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
\tPut briefly the prosecution case is as follows :
\n\tOn 19th February, 1977 at about 4.45 p.m. the
\naccused Ram Samujh and Mahmood  appellant No.1 both
\narmed with guns, Khalid  appellant No.2, Bajrang and
\none unidentified person armed with lathi assaulted
\ndeceased Ram Singh at Galiyara near the fields of Ram
\nSewak Ahir, while he was returning to his village
\nBadipur on his motorcycle.  It was alleged that the
\naccused Ram Samujh and Mahmood fired four shots, as a
\nresult of which the deceased fell down injured and
\nthereafter Khaliq snatched the licensed revolver
\nbelonging to the deceased and all the five fled away
\nfrom the scene.  Ram Singh died on the spot.  The
\nincident of murderous attack was witnessed by Jaikirat
\nSingh (P.W.1) who is none other than the son of
\ndeceased  Ram Singh, Ram Ratan (P.W.2), resident of
\nvillage Sujerpur  hamlet of Bodipur and Ram Adhar
\n(P.W.3).  P.W.1 lodged written First Information Report
\nExt.Ka.1 on the same day at 4.45 p.m. naming all the
\naccused and the manner in which the murderous attack on
\nthe deceased had taken place. Jagdamba Prasad Dwivedi
\n(P.W.7) the office in-charge of Police station, Kothi
\nrushed to the scene of offence at about 6.00 p.m. and
\nfound the dead body of Ram Singh and his motorcycle in
\ngaliyara near the fields of Ram Sewak Ahir.  The broken
\npieces of the skull of the deceased  and broken three
\nteeth were seized from the place of occurrence.  The
\ndischarged cartridge and tickli were also seized from
\nthe spot.  P.W.7 after preparing the Inquest Report
\n(Ext. Ka.7) sent the dead body for conducting post-
\nmortem.  Dr. R.S. Katiyar P.W.5 performed the autopsy
\non the dead body on 20th  February, 1977 at about 9.45
\na.m. and found as many as five ante-mortem gun shot
\nwounds.  A cap of cartridge was extricated from the
\nbrain of the deceased. Scalp bones were found
\nfractured.  It was found that vital organs like
\nperitoneum, liver, kidneys were badly ruptured.  In the
\nopinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to
\nshock and hemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem
\ninjuries.  The investigation of the case was
\ntransferred in the first week of March, 1977 to CBCID.
\nInspector M.L. Gautam having completed rest of the
\ninvestigation submitted chargesheet against the
\nappellants and other accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused have denied the charges framed against
\nthem and took the plea that they have been falsely
\nimplicated due to enmity.  The accused were accordingly
\nput on trial.  The prosecution in order to establish
\nits case in altogether examined 8 witnesses and got
\nmarked 39 documents as Exts. Ka.1-39.  Amongst the
\nwitnesses examined by the prosecution, Jaikirath Singh,
\nRam Ratan and Ram Adhar (P.Ws. 1,2 and 3) respectively
\nwere eye-witnesses to the murderous attack on the
\ndeceased.  The accused also led evidence and examined
\nVirendra Singh DW 1, Laxmi Narain Sinha DW 2 and Bindra
\nCharan DW 3.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of
\nthe oral evidence and material on record found  all the
\naccused guilty of the charges framed against them and
\nsentenced them to various terms of imprisonment.  On
\nappeal the High Court of Allahabad confirmed the
\nconviction and sentences imposed by the learned
\nSessions Judge.  The appellants who are accused No.2
\nand 3 respectively alone have preferred this appeal by
\nspecial leave, challenging their conviction and
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have elaborately heard the learned senior
\ncounsel Shri Harjinder Singh and Shri R.C. Kohli as
\nwell as Shri Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional
\nAdvocate General for the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned senior counsel Shri Harjinder Singh
\nmainly contended that the FIR lodged by P.W.1 Jaikirath
\nSingh was ante-timed and ante-dated and brought into
\nexistence after due deliberations and consultations
\nwith the police.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the learned senior counsel, the
\nspecial report required to be sent to the superior
\nauthorities and a copy of check FIR to the Illaqua
\nMagistrate as required under Section 157 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure was not sent by the police.  That
\napart arrest of Maiku Bhujwa before 3.40 p.m. and his
\ndetention in the police station at 5.30 p.m. and also
\nthe fact that some seizure memos, prepared by
\nInvestigating Officer on the same day which do not
\nbear any crime number, are more than sufficient to
\ndoubt the timings of FIR Ext.Ka.1.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no doubt that FIR in a criminal case and
\nparticularly in  murder case is a vital and valuable
\npiece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating
\nevidence led by the prosecution at the trial.  FIR is
\nthe earliest information regarding the circumstances
\nunder which the crime was committed, including the
\nnames of the actual culprits and the part played by
\nthem, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of
\nthe eye-witnesses, if any.  Delay in lodging the FIR
\nmay result in embelishment,  which is a creature of an
\nafter thought.  This court in Meharaj Singh vs. State
\nof U.P.  observed that with a view to determine whether
\nthe FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have
\nbeen recorded, the courts generally look for certain
\nexternal checks.  One of the check is the receipt of
\nthe copy of the FIR, called as a Special Report in a
\nmurder case, by the local Magistrate.  If this report
\nis received by the Magistrate  late it can give rise to
\nan inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it
\nis alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course,
\nthe prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation
\nfor the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of
\nthe FIR by the local Magistrate.  The second external
\ncheck equally important is sending of copy of the FIR
\nalong with the dead body and its reference in the
\nInquest Report. <\/p>\n
\tThis court while construing Section 157 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure in Anil Rai  vs. State of
\nBihar   observed that the said provision is designed to
\nkeep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of
\nsuch cognizable offence so as to be able to control
\nthe investigation and if necessary to give appropriate
\ndirection under Section 159 of the Code.  But where
\nthe FIR is shown to have actually been recorded without
\ndelay and investigation started on the basis of the
\nFIR, the delay in sending the copy of the report to the
\nMagistrate cannot by itself justify the conclusion that
\nthe investigation was tainted and the prosecution
\ninsupportable.<\/p>\n
\tThis court further took the view that the delay
\ncontemplated under Section 157 of the Code for doubting
\nthe authenticity of the FIR is not every delay but only
\nextra-ordinary and unexplained delay.  We do not
\npropose to burden this short judgment of ours with
\nvarious authoritative pronouncements on the subject
\nsince the law is so well settled that delay in despatch
\nof FIR by itself is not a circumstance which can throw
\nout the prosecutions case in its entirety,
\nparticularly in cases where the  prosecution provides
\ncogent and reasonable explanation for the delay in
\ndespatch of the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe same principle has been reiterated by this
\ncourt in Alla China Apparao & Ors. Vs. State of A.P.
\nwherein this court while construing the expression
\nforthwith in Section (1) of Code of Criminal
\nProcedure observed that  it is a matter of common
\nexperience that there has been tremendous rise in the
\ncrime resulting into enormous volume of work, but
\nincrease in the police force has not been made in the
\nsame proportion.  In view of the aforesaid factors, the
\nexpression forthwith  within the meaning of Section
\n157(1) obviously cannot mean that the prosecution is
\nrequired to explain every hours delay in sending the
\nfirst information report to the magistrate, of course,
\nthe same has to be sent with reasonable despatch, which
\nwould obviously mean within a reasonable possible time
\nin the circumstances prevailing.  Therefore, in our
\nview, the first information report was sent to the
\nmagistrate with reasonable promptitude and no delay at
\nall was caused in forwarding the same to the
\nmagistrate.  In any view of the matter, even if
\nmagistrates court was closed by and the first
\ninformation report reached him within six hours from
\nthe time of its lodgment, in view of the increase in
\nwork load, we have no hesitation in saying that even in
\nsuch a case it cannot be said that there was any delay
\nat all in forwarding the first information report to
\nthe magistrate.<\/p>\n
\tIt is not possible to lay down any universal rule
\nas to within what time the special report is required
\nto be despatched by the Station House officer after
\nrecording the FIR.  Each case turns on its own facts.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned senior counsel invited our attention
\nto the judgments of this court in Balaka Singh and ors.
\nVs. State of Punjab   and Datar Singh vs. The State of
\nPunjab<\/a>   in which this court highlighted the importance
\nof despatch of special report to the Illaqua
\nMagistrate.  There is no dispute with the proposition
\nthat it is the duty of the Station House Officer to
\ndespatch Special Report to the Illaqua Magistrate as is
\nrequired under Section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure.  But there may be variety of factors and
\ncircumstances for the delay in despatch of the FIR and
\nits receipt by the local Magistrate. The existence of
\nFIR and its time may become doubtful in cases where
\nthere is no satisfactory and proper explanation from
\nthe investigating agencies.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Budh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP  , this court
\nwhile making reference of the regulations made by the
\nState of U.P. in terms of the U.P. Police Act held the
\nregulations  to be statutory in nature.  The
\nregulations provide the procedure as to how and in what
\nform the information relating to commission of a
\ncognizable offence when given to an officer in-charge
\nof a police station is to be recorded and sent to
\nsuperior officers.  The regulations are procedural in
\nnature which are meant for the guidance of the police.
\nThe regulations do not supplant but supplement the
\nprovisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe shall now consider the facts of the present
\ncase and apply the law declared by this court in more
\nthan one decision.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is in the evidence of Jaikirath Singh (P.W.1)
\nthat he rushed to the police station by a bicycle and
\nlodged written  FIR Ext.Ka.1 within 1 = hours of the
\nincident.  The distance between the place of occurrence
\nand the police station is about 9 kms.  It is in his
\nevidence that he took about 15-20 minutes to prepare
\nhis report and nobody advised him in preparation of the
\nreport.  He went to the police station all alone.  We
\ndo not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve this
\nversion given by PW 1.  There is nothing unnatural and
\nunusual in PW 1 stating the details of the incident in
\nhis written FIR Ext.Ka.1.  The behavioral pattern and
\nresponse of individuals in a given situation may differ
\nfrom person to person.  From a bare reading of the FIR
\nExt.Ka.1 we do not find anything artificial in it.  It
\ncannot be said to be a contrived one brought into
\nexistence after due deliberations as contended by the
\ncounsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tBe it noted, Jagdamba Prasad Dwivedi, PW 7, the
\nofficer in-charge of police station, Kothi having
\nreceived the relevant papers in village Sethmau, rushed
\nto the place of occurrence and reached there at about
\n6.00 p.m. where he found the dead body of Ram Singh.
\nThe inquest report Ext.Ka.7 was prepared on the spot
\nand the body was sent for post-mortem examination.  The
\nInquest Report Ext.Ka.7 specifically refers to the
\nlodging of FIR by PW 1 at 4.45 p.m.  on 19.02.1977.
\nThe mere fact that crime number is not mentioned in the
\nInquest Report is of no significance.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe sequence of events, namely, that  Jagdamba
\nPrasad Dwivedi -PW 7  reached the scene of offence at
\n6.00 p.m. and prepared Inquest Report duly mentioning
\nabout lodging of the  FIR by PW 1 at 4.45 p.m. on 19th
\nFebruary, 1977 followed by despatch  of the dead body
\nto the hospital which reached the hospital by 9.30 p.m.
\nand the post-mortem examination at 9.30 a.m. on 20th
\nFebruary, 1977 in clear and unequivocal terms reveal
\nthat the FIR was lodged at the time it is stated to
\nhave been recorded.  It cannot be treated as an ante-
\ntimed and ante-dated one. It is required to note that
\n20th February, 1977 being Sunday, the Illaqua Magistrate
\nreceived special report on 21st February, 1977.  The
\nspecial report was despatched by dak.\n<\/p>\n
\tArrest of one Maiku Bhujwa on 19th February, 1977
\nat 3.00 p.m. in Crime No.17 under Section 147 etc. and
\nhis being lodged in police station at about 5.30 p.m.
\nby two constables Ram Naresh and Ram Tool Misra as
\nshown in Exts. Ka. 3 and 4 has been used as a sheet
\nanchor to challenge  the time of FIR Ext.Ka.1 by saying
\nthat  if the two constables were summoned by Station
\nOfficer, on reaching the place of occurrence, then in
\nall probability Station Officer reached the place of
\noccurrence by 3.00 p.m. even before the FIR was issued.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court adverting to this aspect of the
\nmatter observed the investigating officer Sri Dwivedi
\ndoes not say that he arrested Maiku Bhujwa.  Moreover,
\narrest of Maiku was not in connection with the murder
\nin question, but was in connection with another case.
\nMost importantly, what could have been the object
\nbehind delaying the time of occurrence of reaching Sri
\nDwivedi, on the spot, has not been made clear by Sri
\nKidwai.  We are of the view that arrest of Maiku at
\nabout 3.00 p.m. and his lodging in Hawalat at 5.30 p.m.
\nby two constables, does not militate against the time
\nof FIR Ext.Ka-1 as shown in police papers.  It is also
\npossible that some manipulation was made in the context
\nof the arrest of Maiku, to make the case against him
\nmore sound.<\/p>\n
\tWe do not find any fallacy or error in the
\nreasoning of the High Court.  For the aforesaid reasons
\nwe do not find any substance in the submission made by
\nthe learned senior counsel about the ante-time and
\nante-dating of the FIR.  The findings in this regard as
\nrecorded by Sessions Judge as well as the High Court
\nare supported by acceptable evidence and there is no
\nreason to take a different view.  It is well settled
\nthat this court normally does not reappreciate the
\nevidence unless it is shown that the findings are
\npatently erroneous or perverse in nature.  However, in
\norder to satisfy ourselves we have looked into the
\nevidence of PWs 1,2,3 and 7 and we are satisfied that
\nthe FIR was lodged on the date and time as stated by
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
       The prosecution story entirely rests upon the
\ndirect evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3. PW-1 is none
\nother than the son of deceased Ram Singh. He was
\npresent in his fields situated nearby the place of
\noccurrence where his father was attacked. Jaikirat
\n(PW-1) no doubt was doing his part time G.N.S. in
\nplantation at Lucknow but that itself would not make
\nhis presence doubtful at the scene of offence on the
\nfateful day.  The defence did not elicit anything in
\nthe cross-examination casting any doubt about the
\npresence of PW-1 at the scene of offence. There is
\nnothing unnatural about the conduct of PW-1 at the
\nscene of occurrence. He gave  detailed version  as to
\nthe manner of assault and the role played by each of
\nthe accused.   The names of PW-2 and PW-3 were also
\nmentioned as eye-witnesses in the First Information
\nReport itself.  In the circumstances, PW-2 and PW-3
\ncannot be treated as chance witnesses. The Trial Court
\nand as well as the High Court did not commit any error
\nin relying on the testimony of   PW-2 and PW-3 as eye-
\nwitnesses of the occurrence which fully stands
\ncorroborated with the testimony of PW-1. Be that as it
\nmay, there was not even a suggestion to PW-2 and PW-3
\nthat they had animosity towards the accused persons.
\nThey are independent witnesses and there is no reason
\nfor them to speak against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, it was strenuously urged that the
\npresence of Jaikirat (PW-1)  at the scene of offence is
\nhighly doubtful as he made no attempt whatsoever to
\nsave his father from being further assaulted. We find
\nno substance in this contention. It is in the evidence
\nof  Jaikirat (PW-1)  that all the four shots were fired
\nin quick succession and at that moment PW-1 was at some
\ndistance from the actual place of  attack.  Be it noted
\nthat at least 2 accused were armed with fire-arms and
\none with  lathi   and they were using the weapons with
\nall impunity.  In such circumstances, Jaikirat (PW-1)
\nmay not have mustered his courage to jump into the fray
\nand risk his own life. It is very difficult to predict
\nor express any opinion as to what  could have  been
\nnormal or natural conduct of a person  in such a
\nsituation. Response of individuals in such situations
\nmay differ from person to person. It is not possible to
\nreject the evidence or doubt the presence of PW-1 on
\nthat ground.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe post-mortem  examination of the deceased Ram
\nSingh  was performed by Dr.R.S.Katiyar (PW-5). The
\npost-mortem report is exhibit Ka-4. The Medical Officer
\nfound the following ante-mortem injuries on the person
\nof the deceased:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tA gun shot wound (wound of entry) 3 cm
\nx 1 cm. Over left side of face just
\nabove the left side of the lower lip.\n<\/p>\n
Wound of Ext. 3 cm x 2 cm. Over the
\nright parietal bone, 7 cm. Above the
\nright ear.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA gun shot wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm. Over
\nthe right side of face below max.\n<\/p>\n
prominence.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMultiple gun shot wounds in an area of
\n13 cm x 11 cm. Over the right side of
\nback below the inferior angle of
\nscapula.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tA gun shot wound (wound of entry) 2 cm
\nx 2 cm over the right side of the back
\n2 cm. Right to 12th thoracic vertebra.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMultiple gun shot wounds in an area of
\n9 cm. X 4 cm. Over the back  and middle
\nof right arm.\n<\/p>\n
\tRelying on his evidence the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant contended  that the oral account as given
\nby PW-1, 2 and 3 is  at variance with medical evidence
\navailable on record. It is contended that while
\naccording to the eye-witnesses all the four shots were
\nfired from  the gun, from right side of the victim,
\nwound no.1 (wound of entry) was on the left side of the
\nface and caused by bullet and this evidence belies the
\nclaim of eye witnesses that they saw the assault on Ram
\nSingh.  It is true that to a pointed query in cross-
\nexamination as regards the nature of injury no. 1, the
\nMedical Officer stated that the said injury was caused
\nby bullet only.    The learned counsel contended that
\nweapons in  the hands   of the accused even according
\nto  PW-1 were of 12 bore guns and  not any pistols or
\nrevolvers. No bullet injury could have been caused with
\nthe fire-arms that were alleged to be in the hands of
\nthe assailants.  We find no substance in this
\nsubmission. The Medical Officer is not ballistic
\nexpert.  He was not expected to answer as to whether
\ninjury no. 1 could have been caused by bullet alone.
\nHis opinion to that extent is of no consequence.  It is
\nwell settled that medical evidence is only an evidence
\nof opinion and it is not conclusive and   when oral
\nevidence is found to be inconsistent with the medical
\nopinion, the question of relying upon one or the other
\nwould depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
\ncase. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor.
\nThe ocular evidence if otherwise is acceptable has to
\nbe given importance over medical opinion. However,
\nwhere the medical evidence totally improbabilises the
\nocular version the same can be taken to be a factor to
\naffect credibility of the prosecution version.  We are
\nnot inclined to place any reliance upon the opinion of
\nthe Medical Officer that the injury no.1 could have
\nbeen caused only with bullet since he is not a
\nballistic expert.  This part of the evidence of the
\nMedical Officer cannot be considered to be the opinion
\nof an expert and the same has no evidentiary value. It
\nis not possible to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, 2
\nand 3 and their presence at the scene of occurrence
\nbased on the medical evidence. The High Court rightly
\nobserved that the controversy as regards injury No. 1
\nand whether the same could have been caused by bullet
\nor pellet to be without any basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the State rightly
\ncontended that in case of attack by members of un-
\nlawful assembly on the victim in furtherance of common
\nobject, it is not necessary for the prosecution to
\nestablish overt-act  done by each accused. It is
\nrequired to be noticed that Ram Smujh (A-1) who had
\nfired two shots, convicted by the Sessions Court, did
\nnot even challenge his conviction in the High Court.
\nThe appellants have been rightly convicted under
\nSection 302 read with aid of Section 149 of  IPC. PW-5
\nin his  evidence stated that  all the injuries
\nsustained by the deceased were from gun.  It is further
\nstated that from the body of deceased one bullet, one
\ncover tikli, two dat   and 40 chare shots were
\ntaken out, put in packet and sealed .. It is also
\nstated  in his evidence that injuries caused on the
\nbody of the deceased were sufficient  in the normal
\ncourse to cause death. This part of the medical
\nevidence if juxtaposed with the oral evidence of PW-1,
\n2 and 3 it  becomes unnecessary to go into the question
\nas to which  accused caused what injury and which  was
\na fatal one. Once a membership of an unlawful assembly
\nis established, it is not incumbent on the prosecution
\nto establish any specific overt-act to any of the
\naccused  for fastening of liability with the aid of
\nsection 149 of the IPC. Commission of overt-act by each
\nmember of the unlawful assembly  is not necessary.  The
\ncommon object of the unlawful assembly of the accused
\nin the present case  is evident from the fact that some
\nof them were armed with deadly weapons.  None of them
\nwere curious onlookers or spectators to the macabre
\ndrama that was enacted on 19.2.1977 at 3.30 p.m. at
\ngaliyara, village  Badipur.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
\nthis appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 Author: B Reddy Bench: Altamas Kabir, B. Sudershan Reddy CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 402 of 2006 PETITIONER: Mahmood & Anr RESPONDENT: State of U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/11\/2007 BENCH: Altamas Kabir & B. Sudershan Reddy JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-242892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 - 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\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-09T04:42:04+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T04:42:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3902,\"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\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T04:42:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 - 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\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-09T04:42:04+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T04:42:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007"},"wordCount":3902,"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\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007","name":"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T04:42:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahmood-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-on-15-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/242892","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=242892"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242892\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}