{"id":248382,"date":"2001-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001"},"modified":"2018-08-25T23:00:28","modified_gmt":"2018-08-25T17:30:28","slug":"uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi, S.N. Phukan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 749  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nUKA RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi & S.N. Phukan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
    Solely  relying upon the dying declaration of  Parveena,
\nthe  deceased, the trial court held the appellant guilty for
\nthe  murder of his wife and daughter Kumari Dharmistha\taged
\n16  months.  Upon conviction for the offences under Sections
\n302<\/a>,  326<\/a>  and 498A<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code, the  appellant
\nwas sentenced to imprisonment for life for the main offence.
\nAppeal\tagainst\t the aforesaid conviction and  sentence\t was
\ndismissed by the High Court vide judgment impugned herein.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts of the case are that on the intervening night
\nof 6\/7th May, 1994, Nonji (PW1) submitted a complaint before
\nthe  incharge  of the police station Bheenmal to the  effect
\nthat  when  he\twas  at\t the  Chakki  of  Tararam  at  about
\n11.30-12.00 in the midnight he heard voice raising the noise
\nsaying\tMare  Mare  from  the side of  the  house  of  the
\nappellant.   On\t hearing the noise, the informant  came\t out
\nfrom  the Chakki and saw Smt.Parveena, wife of appellant  in
\nblazes rushing out from her house.  She tore her clothes and
\nwas sitting in naked position.\tAfter sometime the appellant
\nalso  came  out of his house.  On being asked Parveena\ttold
\nthat the appellant had burnt her by sprinkling kerosene oil.
\nAfter  registering the case under Sections 324<\/a> and 498A<\/a> IPC,
\nthe  police  commenced the investigation.  Parveena who\t was
\nadmitted  in the hospital died on 8.6.1994 and the  daughter
\nof the appellant died on 2.7.1994 whereafter the offence was
\nchanged to Section 302<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    To prove its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses
\nat  the\t trial,\t most  of whom turned hostile  and  did\t not
\nsupport\t the case of the prosecution.  Before her death\t the
\ndeceased  had made dying declarations Exhibit P-20 which was
\nrecorded  by the police at about 3.30 a.m.  and Exhibit P-27
\nwhich  was recorded by Judicial Magistrate at 3.55 a.m.\t  on
\n7.5.1994.   The\t oral dying declarations, allegedly made  by
\nthe  deceased, were sought to be proved by the testimony  of
\nPWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.  PWs 1, 2 and 4 have not supported the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    In\this statement recorded under Section 313<\/a> of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that on 6.5.1994
\nbetween\t 11.30\tand 12.00 p.m.\the was sleeping outside\t his
\nhouse whereas his wife and daughter were sleeping inside the
\nhouse.\tAfter hearing weeping of his daughter he went inside
\nthe house and saw his daughter in the state of burning along
\nwith  his wife.\t He made an attempt to save their lives.  He
\nthought\t that  his  wife had burnt his\tdaughter,  hence  he
\nstarted\t abusing her upon which she went outside at Chabutra
\nwhile  burning.\t  He  brought  his mother on  the  scene  of
\noccurrence  who\t was  living  separately.  He  went  to\t the
\nhospital  along\t with  the  burnt  wife\t and  the  daughter.
\nAccording to him his wife was insane and he has been getting
\nher treated for insanity.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the record it appears that the FIR was received in
\nthe  police  station  on 7.5.1994 at about  1.30  a.m.\t The
\nstatement  Exhibit P-20, obviously under Section 161<\/a> of\t the
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure, is stated to have been made  by
\nthe  deceased  at  about 3.30 a.m.   and  dying\t declaration
\nExhibit\t P-27  was recorded by the Magistrate at about\t3.55
\na.m.   For convicting and sentencing the appellant, both the
\ntrial  as  well\t as the High Court have\t relied\t upon  dying
\ndeclaration, Exhibit P-27.\n<\/p>\n
    Statements,\t written or verbal of relevant facts made by
\na  person  who\tis dead, or who cannot be found or  who\t has
\nbecome\tincapable  of giving evidence, or  whose  attendance
\ncannot\tbe  procured without an amount of delay\t or  expense
\nwhich  under  the circumstances of the case appears  to\t the
\ncourt  unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts under the
\ncircumstances  enumerated  under sub-sections (1) to (8)  of
\nSection\t 32  of\t the Act.  When the statement is made  by  a
\nperson\tas  to\tcause  of his death, or as  to\tany  of\t the
\ncircumstances  of  the\ttransaction which  resulted  in\t his
\ndeath,\tin  cases in which the cause of that persons  death
\ncomes into question is admissible in evidence being relevant
\nwhether\t the  person was or was not, at the time  when\tthey
\nwere  made, under expectation of death, and whatever may  be
\nthe nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death
\ncomes\tinto   question.   Such\t  statements  in   law\t are
\ncompendiously  called dying declarations.  The admissibility
\nof  the\t dying declaration rests upon the principle  that  a
\nsense  of impending death produces in a mans mind the  same
\nfeeling\t as  that of a conscientious and virtuous man  under
\noath – Nemo moriturus praesumuntur mentiri.  Such statements
\nare  admitted,\tupon consideration that\t their\tdeclarations
\nmade  in extremity, when the maker is at the point of  death
\nand when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive
\nto  falsehood  is silenced and the mind induced by the\tmost
\npowerful consideration to speak the truth.  The principle on
\nwhich  the  dying declarations are admitted in evidence,  is
\nbased  upon  the  legal maxim  Nemo  moriturus\tpraesumitur
\nmentire\t i.e., a man will not meet his maker with a lie\t in
\nhis  mouth.  It has always to be kept in mind that though  a
\ndying  declaration  is entitled to great weight, yet  it  is
\nworthwhile to note that as the maker of the statement is not
\nsubjected  to  cross- examination, it is essential  for\t the
\ncourt  to  insist that dying declaration should be  of\tsuch
\nnature\tas  to inspire full confidence of the court  in\t its
\ncorrectness.   The  court  is  obliged\t to  rule  out\t the
\npossibility  of\t the  statement being the result  of  either
\ntutoring, prompting or vindictive or product of imagination.
\nBefore relying upon a dying declaration, the court should be
\nsatisfied  that\t the deceased was in a fit state of mind  to
\nmake  the  statement.  Once the court is satisfied that\t the
\ndying  declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by
\nany  extraneous\t consideration, it can base  its  conviction
\nwithout\t  any  further\tcorroboration\tas  rule   requiring
\ncorroboration  is  not\ta  rule of law but only\t a  rule  of
\nprudence.\n<\/p>\n
    In Tapinder Singh v.  State of Punjab<\/a> [1970 (2) SCR 113]
\nthis Court held:\n<\/p>\n
    The\t dying declaration is a statement by a person as to
\nthe  cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of
\nthe  transaction which resulted in his death and it  becomes
\nrelevant under Section 32(1)<\/a> of the Indian Evidence Act in a
\ncase  in  which the cause of that persons death comes  into
\nquestion.   It\tis  true that a dying declaration is  not  a
\ndeposition  in\tcourt and it is neither made on oath nor  in
\nthe  presence of the accused.  It is, therefore, not  tested
\nby  cross-examination on behalf of the accused.\t But a dying
\ndeclaration  is admitted in evidence by way of an  exception
\nto  the\t general rule against the admissibility\t of  hearsay
\nevidence, on the principle of necessity.  The weak points of
\na  dying declaration just mentioned merely serve to put\t the
\ncourt  on its guard while testing its reliability,  imposing
\non  it an obligation to closely scrutinise all the  relevant
\nattendant circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
    This  Court\t in  Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v.  State  of\tA.P<\/a>.
\n[1999  (7) scc 69] observed that on the fact-situation of  a
\ncase  a\t judicial  mind\t would tend to\twobble\tbetween\t two
\nequally\t plausible  hypothesis – was it suicide, or  was  it
\nhomicide?   If\tthe  dying   declaration  projected  by\t the
\nprosecution  gets  credence  the alternative  hypothesis  of
\nsuicide\t can be eliminated justifiably.\t For that purpose  a
\nscrutiny   of\tthe  dying   declaration   with\t  meticulous
\ncircumspection is called for.  It must be sieved through the
\njudicial  cullendar  and if it passes through the gauzes  it
\ncan  be\t made the basis of a conviction, otherwise not.\t  It
\nwas  further  held  that  in view of  the  impossibility  of
\nconducting  the test on the version in the dying declaration
\nwith  the touchstone of cross-examination, the court has  to
\nadopt other tests in order to satisfy its judicial conscious
\nthat the dying declaration contained nothing but the truth.\n<\/p>\n
    Ms.Minakshi\t Vij  who appeared as amicus curaie in\tthis
\ncase  vehemently argued that the trial court as well as\t the
\nHigh  Court  was  not justified in relying  upon  the  dying
\ndeclaration  (Exhibit  P-27)  to base  the  conviction,\t as,
\naccording  to  her, the said declaration was not made  by  a
\nmentally  sound and normal person.  It is submitted that the
\ndeceased  was  suffering from a mental illness\twhich  might
\nhave  prompted\ther to end her life.  Alternatively,  it  is
\nargued\tknowing\t that  Parveena was a  mental  patient,\t the
\nprosecution  should have taken steps to ascertain that while
\nmaking\tthe  statement she was not suffering from  any\tsuch
\nillness.  In rebuttal Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain submitted that as
\ndespite\t taking such a plea the appellant has not chosen  to
\nlead  any  defence  evidence, the genuineness of  the  dying
\ndeclaration  cannot  be doubted.  He has  further  submitted
\nthat  because before recording the statement (Exh.P-27)\t the
\ndoctor\thad  declared  the deceased to be fit  to  make\t the
\nstatement  vide Exhibit P-26, no doubt can be created  about
\nthe  mental faculties of the deceased at the time of  making
\nthe statement.\n<\/p>\n
    There  is  no  dispute that the prosecution is  under  a
\nlegal  obligation  to prove its case beyond  all  reasonable
\ndoubts\tand the accused is only to probabilise his  defence.
\nFrom  the evidence on record we find that the plea regarding
\nthe  mental condition and illness of the deceased was not an
\nafter-thought  in  the\tinstant case.  It  is  evident\tthat
\nduring\tthe  whole trial, the appellant has been  trying  to
\ncross-examine the witnesses to probabilise that the deceased
\nwas  suffering\tfrom mental illness which could be a  reason
\nfor  her  to commit suicide or alternatively  the  statement
\nExhibit\t P-27  cannot be held to be voluntarily made or\t not
\nmade  under  any  extraneous influences.  Nonji\t (PW1),\t the
\nfirst informant in reply to a court question had stated that
\nParveena  was  mad  but added that he had  heard  about\t her
\nmadness.  In cross-examination Lal Singh (PW3) had stated I
\ndo  not\t know that Parveena was mad or not.  Villagers\twere
\nsaying\tthat Uka Ram had brought her for medical treatment.
\nPabu (PW4) in her cross-examination had stated Parveena was
\nmentally  made\tand  my\t son had  brought  her\tfor  medical
\ntreatment.   Masra  (PW10), the father of the deceased\twas
\nalso  cross-examined  on this subject wherein he had  stated
\nthat  It is wrong to say that previous son-in-laws of Sathu
\nand Abu Road say that Pravina is insane and it is also wrong
\nthat due to above reasons they left Parvina.  I am ill for 5
\nyears.\t It is wrong to say that my son Prabhu got treatment
\nof  insanity at Palanpur.  It is wrong to say that treatment
\nof  insanity  of  my  two daughters is\tgoing  on.   Prabhu
\n(PW11),\t who is the real brother of the deceased has  stated
\nthat  It  is  true that the mental treatment of\t my  sister
\nPravina\t was  going  on.   She was  suffering  from  lunatic
\nattack.\t On this subject statement of accused under Section
\n313<\/a>  has already been noticed.\tIn her dying declaration the
\ndeceased  had  not  referred to any reason  which  allegedly
\nprompted the appellant to commit the crime.\n<\/p>\n
    After  going through the whole of the evidence, perusing
\nthe  record  and  hearing  the submissions  of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  parties, we are of the opinion  that\t the
\nprosecution  had  not proved, beyond doubt, that  the  dying
\ndeclaration  was  true, voluntary and not influenced by\t any
\nextraneous consideration.  Despite knowing the fact that the
\ndeceased  was a mental patient, the investigating agency did
\nnot  take  any\tprecaution to ensure that the  incident\t was
\nsuicidal  or  homicidal.   The probability of  the  deceased
\ncommitting  suicide  has  not been eliminated.\t There\talso
\nexist  a doubt about the mental condition of the deceased at
\nthe  time  she\tmade  dying  declaration  (Exhibit  P-\t27).
\nExhibit\t P-26,\tthe medical certificate only states  to\t her
\nphysical condition to make a statement but does not refer to
\nher  mental condition even at that time.  The trial as\twell
\nas  the High Court appear to have ignored this aspect of the
\nmatter\twhile  convicting and sentencing the appellant.\t  We
\nare  satisfied that it is a fit case in which the  appellant
\nis entitled to the benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tthe dying declaration, the sole evidence upon  which
\nthe  conviction\t is  based,  is\t  not  reliable\t beyond\t all
\nreasonable  doubts,  the  conviction  and  sentence  of\t the
\nappellant  is  not  justified.\tAccordingly, the  appeal  is
\nallowed\t by  setting  aside   the  impugned  judgment.\t The
\nappellant is acquitted of all the charges and is directed to
\nbe  set\t at liberty forthwith unless required in some  other
\ncase.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 Author: Sethi Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi, S.N. Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 749 of 2000 PETITIONER: UKA RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/2001 BENCH: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi & S.N. Phukan JUDGMENT: SETHI,J. L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J Solely relying […]<\/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-248382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 - 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\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-25T17:30:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T17:30:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2112,\"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\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\",\"name\":\"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T17:30:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 - 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\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-25T17:30:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T17:30:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001"},"wordCount":2112,"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\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001","name":"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T17:30:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uka-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001"}]},{"@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\/248382","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=248382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}