{"id":24517,"date":"2008-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-08T19:20:23","modified_gmt":"2016-04-08T13:50:23","slug":"mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.           OF 2008\n   (CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NOS.8515-8516 OF 2008)\n\n\n\nMahila Vinod Kumar        i                           .....\n\nPetitioner\n\n                              Versus\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh                          .....Respondent\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
2.   Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   Though, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave<\/p>\n
petitions, but we find that there is a need for expressing views<\/p>\n
on action to be taken for maliciously setting law into motion.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The petitioner lodged a report against two persons at<\/p>\n
Pichhore Police Station to the effect that on 28.1.1993<\/p>\n
between 6.00 to 7.00 a.m. she was waylaid by them who<\/p>\n
dragged her and committed rape on her, one after another.<\/p>\n
She claimed to have narrated the incident to her father and<\/p>\n
uncle and, thereafter lodged the report at the police station.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the report, matter was investigated.        The<\/p>\n
accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed. The<\/p>\n
accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,<\/p>\n
1860 (in short `the IPC’). The accused persons abjured their<\/p>\n
guilt. During trial, the petitioner stated that she had actually<\/p>\n
not been raped.    As she resiled from the statement made<\/p>\n
during investigation, she was permitted to be cross-examined<\/p>\n
by the prosecution. She even denied to have lodged the first<\/p>\n
information report (Exh.P-1) and to have given any statement<\/p>\n
to the police (Exh.P-2). In view of the statement of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the two accused persons were acquitted by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 28.11.2001. The Trial Court found that the<\/p>\n
                              2<\/span>
\npetitioner had tendered false evidence and had fabricated<\/p>\n
evidence against the accused persons with the intention that<\/p>\n
such evidence shall be used in the proceedings, and,<\/p>\n
therefore, directed cognizance in terms of Section 344 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code’) to be<\/p>\n
taken against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued<\/p>\n
and the case was registered against the petitioner who filed<\/p>\n
reply to the effect that being an illiterate lady, she had<\/p>\n
committed the mistake and may be excused. The Trial Court<\/p>\n
found that the petitioner admitted her guilt that she had<\/p>\n
lodged false report of rape against the accused.   She was,<\/p>\n
accordingly, sentenced to undergo three months’ simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an<\/p>\n
appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by the<\/p>\n
impugned order, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Stand before the High Court was that being an illiterate<\/p>\n
lady, she does not understand law and the particulars of the<\/p>\n
offence were not explained to her and, therefore, the appeal<\/p>\n
should be allowed. This was opposed by the State on the<\/p>\n
                            3<\/span>
\nground that the petitioner had admitted her guilt before the<\/p>\n
Trial Court and, therefore, the conviction is well founded. The<\/p>\n
High Court perused the records of the Trial Court and found<\/p>\n
that in the show-cause reply she had admitted that she had<\/p>\n
told lies all through. The stand that the particulars of the<\/p>\n
offence were not explained to her, was found to be equally<\/p>\n
untenable, because in the show-cause notice issued, relevant<\/p>\n
details were given.   In the first information report, and the<\/p>\n
statement recorded by the police, she had clearly stated that<\/p>\n
she was raped by the accused persons. But in Court she<\/p>\n
denied to have stated so. Learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted   that   the   Court    imposed   15   days’   simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment which is harsh. But that is not the end of the<\/p>\n
matter. The petitioner filed an application before the High<\/p>\n
Court stating that a wrong statement was made before the<\/p>\n
High Court that she had already suffered custody for 15 days,<\/p>\n
which weighed with the High Court to reduce the sentence.<\/p>\n
6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that being a girl<\/p>\n
of tender age, she was pressurized by her mother and uncle to<\/p>\n
                              4<\/span>
\ngive a false report.   This is at variance with the statement<\/p>\n
made in court during trial to the effect that she had not<\/p>\n
reported anything to the police. It is a settled position in law<\/p>\n
that so far as sexual offences are concerned, sanctity is<\/p>\n
attached to the statement of a victim. This Court, has, in<\/p>\n
several cases, held that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone<\/p>\n
is sufficient for the purpose of conviction if it is found to be<\/p>\n
reliable, cogent and credible. In the present case, on the basis<\/p>\n
of the allegations made by the petitioner, two persons were<\/p>\n
arrested and had to face trial and suffered the ignominy of<\/p>\n
being involved in a serious offence like rape. Their acquittal,<\/p>\n
may, to a certain extent, have washed away the stigma, but<\/p>\n
that is not enough.    The purpose of enacting Section 344,<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 479-A of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as `the Old<\/p>\n
Code’) appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to<\/p>\n
deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the<\/p>\n
weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature<\/p>\n
underlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of<\/p>\n
perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and<\/p>\n
                              5<\/span>
\ncan be better achieved now as it is open to the courts to take<\/p>\n
recourse to Section 340(1) (corresponding to Section 476 of<\/p>\n
the Old Code) in cases in which they are failed to take action<\/p>\n
under Section 344 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    This   section   introduces     an   additional   alternative<\/p>\n
procedure to punish perjury by the very Court before which it<\/p>\n
is committed in place of old Section 479 A which did not have<\/p>\n
the desired effect to eradicate the evils of perjury. The salient<\/p>\n
features of this new provision are:\n<\/p>\n
(1)   Special powers have been conferred on two specified<\/p>\n
      Courts, namely Court of Session and Magistrate of the<\/p>\n
      First Class, to take cognizance of an offence of perjury<\/p>\n
      committed by a witness in a proceeding before it instead<\/p>\n
      of filing a complaint before a Magistrate and try and<\/p>\n
      punish the offender by following the procedure of<\/p>\n
      summary trials. For summary trial, see Ch. 21.<\/p>\n
                               6<\/span>
\n(2)   This power is to be exercised after having the matter<\/p>\n
      considered by the Court only at the time of delivery of the<\/p>\n
      judgment or final order.\n<\/p>\n
(3)   The offender shall be given a reasonable opportunity of<\/p>\n
      showing cause before he is punished.\n<\/p>\n
(4)   The maximum sentence that may be imposed is 3<\/p>\n
      month’s imprisonment or a fine up to Rs.500 or both.<\/p>\n
(5)   The order of the Court is appealable (vide S. 351).<\/p>\n
(6)   The procedure in this section is an alternative to one<\/p>\n
      under Sections 340-343. The Court has been given an<\/p>\n
      option to proceed to punish summarily under this<\/p>\n
      section or to resort to ordinary procedure by way of<\/p>\n
      complaint under Section 340 so that, as for instance,<\/p>\n
      where the Court is of opinion that perjury committed is<\/p>\n
      likely to raise complicated questions or deserves more<\/p>\n
      severe punishment than that permitted under this<\/p>\n
      section or the case is otherwise of such a nature or for<\/p>\n
      some reasons considered to be such that the case should<\/p>\n
      be disposed of under the ordinary procedure which<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span>
\n      would be more appropriate, the Court may chose to do so<\/p>\n
      [vide sub-section (3)].\n<\/p>\n
(7)   Further proceedings of any trial initiated under this<\/p>\n
      section shall be stayed and thus, any sentence imposed<\/p>\n
      shall also not be executed until the disposal of an appeal<\/p>\n
      or revision against the judgment or order in the main<\/p>\n
      proceedings in which the witness gave perjured evidence<\/p>\n
      or fabricated false evidence [vide sub-section (4)].<\/p>\n
8.    For exercising the powers under the section the Court at<\/p>\n
the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first<\/p>\n
instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness<\/p>\n
before it has either intentionally given false evidence or<\/p>\n
fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the<\/p>\n
Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of<\/p>\n
justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily<\/p>\n
by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by<\/p>\n
the   witness.   And    the     third   condition   is   that   before<\/p>\n
commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness<\/p>\n
                                  8<\/span>
\nmust be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why<\/p>\n
he should not be so punished. All these conditions arc<\/p>\n
mandatory. [See Narayanswamy v. State of Muharashtra,<\/p>\n
(1971) 2 SCC 182].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    The object of the provision is to deal with the evil perjury<\/p>\n
in a summary way.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions in<\/p>\n
cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the<\/p>\n
menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the<\/p>\n
provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently<\/p>\n
done.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   In the case at hand, the court has rightly taken action<\/p>\n
and we find nothing infirm in the order of the Trial Court and<\/p>\n
the High Court to warrant interference. The special leave<\/p>\n
petitions are, accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                               9<\/span>
\n                     …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                     …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (P. SATHASIVAM)
\nNew Delhi:\n<\/p>\n
July 11, 2008<\/p>\n
                10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. OF 2008 (CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NOS.8515-8516 OF 2008) Mahila Vinod Kumar i ….. Petitioner Versus State […]<\/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-24517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 - 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\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-08T13:50:23+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T13:50:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1452,\"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\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T13:50:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 - 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\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-08T13:50:23+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T13:50:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008"},"wordCount":1452,"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\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008","name":"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T13:50:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahila-vinod-kumari-vs-state-of-m-p-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/24517","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=24517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}