{"id":247773,"date":"2010-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-12T14:08:14","modified_gmt":"2016-04-12T08:38:14","slug":"ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Court No. - 5\n\nCase :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 124 of 2000\n\nPetitioner :- Ganga Bishun And (4) Others.\nRespondent :- The State Of U.P.\nPetitioner Counsel :- K.R.Singh\nRespondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
Reserved
\n                Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2000<\/p>\n
   Ganga Bishun and (4) Others …………………..Revisionists
\n                               Vs.\n<\/p>\n
          State of U.P. ……………. Opposite Party<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
This revision under Section 397<\/a>\/401<\/a> Cr.P.C. has been filed by
\nthe accused persons (revisionists herein) against the judgment
\nand order dated 7.3.2000 passed by Sri P. N. Rai, H.J.S. the
\nthen Sessions Judge, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.83 of
\n1999 : Ganga Bishnu and Others Vs. State of U.P whereby
\nthe appeal preferred by accused persons against their
\nconviction and sentences under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 323<\/a>\/149<\/a>,
\n325<\/a>\/149<\/a> and 506(2)<\/a> I.P.C. was dismissed with the
\nmodification of acquittal of all accused persons for the
\noffence under Section 148<\/a> I.P.C. except Pappu Singh and
\nreduction of sentence of imprisonment of three years to one
\nyear for the offence punishable under Section 325<\/a>\/149<\/a> I.P.C.
\nDuring the pendency of this revision Ram Narain Tiwari
\ndied, so proceeding against him was abated.
\nBrief facts as is revealing from the record which are relevant
\nfor the decision of this revision, are that first informant Sri
\n Nath Tiwari had gone to see his grove on 5.7.1995 at about
\n6:00 p.m. Accused persons Ganga Bishun, Ram Narain
\nTiwari, Surendra Singh, Man Singh and Pappu Singh also
\nreached there. Accused Pappu Singh at that time was armed
\nwith a country-made pistol while other had lathi with them.
\nAll the accused persons on account of the old enmity, started
\nassaulting Sri Nath Tiwari after abusing him. On the alarm
\nbeing raised by Sri Nath Tiwari, Vijay Kumar, Gaya Prasad
\nand certain other persons reached there who saw incident and
\nintervened. The accused persons left the place of incident,
\nthreatened Sri Nath Tiwari to kill him. Sri Nath Tiwari in the
\nincident received several injuries. One Rajendra Prasad
\nPandey scribe the written report at the dictation of Sri Nath
\nTiwari, which was submitted at Police Station Makhi District-
\nUnnao. On the basis of the said written report, a case for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 147<\/a>\/148<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/149<\/a>\/325<\/a>\/
\n149<\/a>\/ 504<\/a>\/506(2)<\/a> I.P.C. was registered against accused persons
\nand the investigation of the case was taken up by the police.
\nThe injured Sri Nath Tiwari was sent by the police to district
\nhospital, Unnao with a constable where he was medically
\nexamined by Dr. Alok Ranjan Mishra on the same day at
\n11:45 a.m. The following injuries were found on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
                1. A   lacerated   wound    1cm    x   0.5cm
\n                  aponeurosis deep on right parietal region
\n                  of scalp, 13 cm away from right ear.\n<\/p>\n
                  Blood is oozing from the wound on
\n                  cleaning\n<\/p>\n
                2. An abraded contusion reddish in colour 9
\n   cm x 5 cm on left side of face.\n<\/p>\n
3. A lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm x muscle<\/p>\n
  deep on outer aspect of right upper arm,
\n  12cm away from right shoulder joint.\n<\/p>\n
  Blood is oozing from the wound on
\n  cleaning.\n<\/p>\n
4. A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling<\/p>\n
  15cm x 3cm on lower behalf of left upper
\n  arm at its back.\n<\/p>\n
5. A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling<\/p>\n
  12cm x 9cm on the back of left elbow joint.\n<\/p>\n
6. A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling<\/p>\n
  15cm x 8 cm on the back of upper 2\/3 rd of
\n  left forearm.\n<\/p>\n
7. A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling<\/p>\n
  10cm x 6 cm on the back of hand.\n<\/p>\n
8. An abraded contusion reddish in colour<\/p>\n
  with diffuse swelling 10cm x 8 cm on left<\/p>\n
  shoulder joint and upper 1\/3rd of left
\n  upper arm.\n<\/p>\n
9. A lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5 cm x muscle<\/p>\n
  deep in front of left leg, 15cm away from
\n  left ankle joint.\n<\/p>\n
10.A lacerated wound with diffuse swelling<\/p>\n
  18cm x 6cm in front of right knee joint and<\/p>\n
  upper 1\/3rd of right leg.\n<\/p>\n
11.A reddish contusion 20cm x 12cm on left
\n                    scapular region of back.\n<\/p>\n
In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were found fresh
\nand caused by blunt object. Injuries nos.9, 10 and 11 were
\nsimple while others were kept under observation and x-ray
\nwas advised for them. Sri Nath Tiwari was X-rayed on the<\/p>\n
next day whereupon fracture of 4th meta carpal bone of his
\nleft arm was found. On the basis of X-ray report, an addition
\nof Section 325<\/a> IPC was made. The police after having
\ncompleted the formalities of the investigation submitted
\ncharge sheet against accused persons for the offence
\npunishable                   under                    Sections
\n147<\/a>\/148<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/149<\/a>\/325<\/a>\/149<\/a>\/504<\/a>\/506(2)<\/a>        I.P.C.   whereupon
\naccused persons were summoned and put on trial.
\nLearned trial court levelled a charge against accused persons
\nfor      the   offence      punishable     under      Sections
\n147<\/a>\/148<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/149<\/a>\/325<\/a>\/149<\/a>\/ 504<\/a>\/506<\/a> (2) I.P.C<\/a>. to which
\naccused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
\ntried.\n<\/p>\n
In order to prove the charge levelled against accused persons,
\nprosecution had examined six witnesses in all. PW-1 Gaya
\nPrasad is alleged to be an independent eye witness of the
\nincident. PW-2 Sri Nath Tiwari is injured himself. PW-3 Dr.
\nSatya Prakash had X-rayed injured Sri Nath Tiwari on<\/p>\n
6.7.1995 and had found fracture of 4th meta carpal bone of
\nleft arm of Sri Nath Tiwari. He has also proved X-ray
\nexamination report. PW-4 Sub-Inspector Ram Singh is the
\nInvestigating Officer of the present case who had recorded
\nthe statement of witness and had preferred the site plan of the
\n place of incident after visiting the same and he had also
\nsubmitted charge sheet after completing the investigation. He
\nhas deposed in support of the factum of investigation. PW-5
\nOm Prakash Mela is a formal witness who had prepared chik
\nreport on the basis of written report of the incident and had
\nregistered the case in the G.D. He has deposed on the said
\nfactum. PW-6 Dr. Alok Ranjan Mishra had medically
\nexamined Sri Nath Tiwari on 5.7.1995 at 11:15 a.m. who had
\nproved injured report, no other witness was examined by the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
The accused persons in their statement under Section 313<\/a>
\nCr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations against them. They
\nin their defence filed copy of charge sheet relating to Case
\nCrime No. 784\/98 Sri Nath Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. under
\nSections 323<\/a>, 504<\/a>, 506<\/a> IPC P.S. Makhi but no witness was
\nexamined by the accused persons in their defence. After
\ngoing through the evidence on record and after hearing the
\nparties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that
\ncharge levelled against accused persons is made out beyond
\nreasonable doubt and accordingly he convicted the accused
\npersons   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Sections
\n147<\/a>\/148<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/149<\/a>\/325<\/a>\/149<\/a> and 506<\/a> IPC. Each of the accused
\nwas sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six
\nmonths for the offence punishable under Section 147<\/a> I.P.C.,
\none year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable
\nunder section 148<\/a> I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonment
\nfor the offence punishable under Section 323<\/a>\/149<\/a> I.P.C., three
\nyears rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under
\n Section 325<\/a>\/149<\/a> I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- and one
\nyear rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under
\nSection 506(2)<\/a> I.P.C. It was further directed that the accused
\nwho commits default in the payment of the fine, he shall
\nfurther undergo imprisonment for one month.
\nFeeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the appeal was
\nfiled by accused persons, which was disposed of as stated
\nabove. Being dissatisfied with this judgment and order passed
\nby appellate court this revision has been filed.
\nI have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists as well as
\nlearned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case
\nalong with the judgment and order, carefully.
\nLearned counsel for the revisionists has not challenged the
\nlegality and propriety of the conviction recorded by the
\nappellate court against the revisionists. Learned counsel for
\nthe revisionists confined his arguments only to the legality
\nand severity of the sentence passed against the revisionists by
\nthe court below. It was submitted that the accused persons
\nwere not previous convict and had no criminal history. They
\nare simple villagers and have no criminal antecedents and
\ntherefore by keeping them in jail for short term of one year,
\nno useful purpose will be served and by sending them to jail,
\nthere is possibility that they will come in contact with the
\nhard criminal there and as such the accused persons ought to
\nhave been dealt with under the provisions of Probation of
\nOffender Act but the learned court below did not do so and
\npass short term sentence as against the revisionists.
\nLearned AGA submitted that a prayer for releasing them on
\n Probation of Offender Act was made by the accused persons
\nbefore the learned Magistrate but the same was refused and
\nbenefit of Probation of Offender Act was not sought for by
\naccused persons before the appellate court and as such they
\nshould not be given the benefit of Probation of Offender Act
\nand as such there is not infirmity or irregularity in the
\njudgment and order passed by the court below and the
\nrevision is liable to be dismissed in toto.
\nI carefully considered the respective submissions made by the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
It reveals from the perusal of the record that the revisionists
\nand the injured of the present case are resident of the same
\nvillage. The revisionists are not previous convict, they have
\nno criminal history or criminal antecedents. The maximum
\nsentence which was awarded to the revisionists is one year
\nrigorous imprisonment. The incident has occurred on
\n5.7.1995 about more than 15 years back. They had been
\nunder constant pressure of the litigation since then. There is
\nevery possibility that if they are sent to jail for the offence
\nwhich was committed by them 15 years before, they will
\ncome in the contact of hard core criminals in jail.
\nIt reveals from the perusal of the record that though the
\naccused persons had made prayer before the learned Trial
\nCourt that benefit of Probation of Offender Act be given to
\nthem but the learned court below refused to give benefit to
\nthem only on the ground that they have been held guilty for
\nthe offence punishable under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 323<\/a>, 325<\/a>
\nread with section 149<\/a> and 506<\/a> IPC and they do not deserve
\n this benefit, but the reasons thereof for not giving benefit
\nwere not given. Section 361<\/a> Cr.P.C. is very relevant on this
\npoint. It provides as under
\n” Section 361-Special<\/a> reasons to be recorded in certain<\/p>\n
cases- Where in any case the court could have dealt with–\n<\/p>\n
(a).an accused person under Section 360<\/a> or under the
\nprovision of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958.\n<\/p>\n
(b).a youthful offender under the Children Act<\/a>, 1960, or any
\nother law for the time being in force for the treatment,
\ntraining or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.
\nBut has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the
\nspecial reasons for not having done so.\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of the above provision would make it clear that
\nwhere, in any case the court could have dealt with accused
\npersons under the provisions of Probation of Offender Act,
\n1958 but the court has not done so, he shall record in his
\njudgment the special reasons for not having done so. The
\noffence for which the accused persons have been held guilty
\nis not punishable life imprisonment of death sentence. All the
\noffenses are triable by the court of the Magistrate and the
\nmaximum punishment awarded to them is one year
\nimprisonment. No special reason for not having given benefit
\nof the Probation of Offender Act has been assigned by the
\nlearned trial court in its judgment. I find no substantial
\nground to refuse this benefit to the accused persons.
\nIn view of the above having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, antecedents of the revisionists and
\nthe provisions of the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure and
\n Probation of Offender Act, 1958, it appears expedient that
\nbenefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act be
\nextended to the revisionists and as such the judgment and
\norder of the court below is liable to be modified to this extent.
\nThe revision therefore, should be allowed in part.
\nThe revision is, therefore, allowed in part. The conviction
\nrecorded by the court below against revisionists are
\nmaintained but the sentence awarded to them is suspended
\nand it is directed that the revisionists shall be released under
\nthe provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act
\non probation of good conduct for a period of one year from
\ntoday on their furnishing a personal bond in the amount of Rs
\n10,000 with one surety to the effect that they shall keep peace
\nand be of good behaviour during the said period of one year
\nand shall appear to receive sentence when called upon by the
\ntrial court. The bond shall be furnished by the revisionists
\nbefore the trial court within a period of one month from
\ntoday.\n<\/p>\n
In case the revisionists failed to comply the above direction,
\nthe revision shall stand dismissed and sentence awarded to
\nthem shall be restored.\n<\/p>\n
Order Date :- 28.7.2010
\nMahesh\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 Court No. – 5 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 124 of 2000 Petitioner :- Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- K.R.Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon’ble Vedpal,J. Reserved […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGanga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-12T08:38:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-12T08:38:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2132,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-12T08:38:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-12T08:38:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-12T08:38:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"},"wordCount":2132,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","name":"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-12T08:38:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-bishun-and-4-others-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganga Bishun And (4) Others. vs The State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/247773","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=247773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}