{"id":25080,"date":"1960-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960"},"modified":"2018-08-31T04:31:36","modified_gmt":"2018-08-30T23:01:36","slug":"sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960","title":{"rendered":"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 715, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 120<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSANWAT SINGH & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/12\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  715\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 120\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1963 SC 200\t (17)\n E\t    1965 SC  26\t (4,6,14)\n R\t    1965 SC 257\t (8)\n R\t    1966 SC1775\t (4)\n RF\t    1967 SC1412\t (5)\n R\t    1971 SC 460\t (13)\n RF\t    1971 SC1977\t (11)\n F\t    1972 SC 116\t (22)\n RF\t    1972 SC 622\t (28,32)\n R\t    1972 SC2020\t (7)\n F\t    1972 SC2679\t (8,9)\n R\t    1973 SC  55\t (8)\n RF\t    1973 SC 399\t (3)\n RF\t    1973 SC1204\t (7)\n RF\t    1973 SC2241\t (5,6)\n F\t    1973 SC2443\t (19)\n RF\t    1973 SC2622\t (7)\n R\t    1974 SC 286\t (5)\n F\t    1974 SC 606\t (7,9)\n R\t    1974 SC 902\t (26)\n R\t    1979 SC 387\t (9)\n R\t    1979 SC 391\t (12)\n R\t    1986 SC 606\t (15)\n R\t    1988 SC2154\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\nAppeal-Against\tacquittal-Principles  to  be  followed-\"Sub-\nstantial and compelling reason\"--Meaning and scope  of-Power\nof Court-Constitution of India, Art. 136.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThere were two rival factions in a certain village one\tcon-\nsisting\t of  Rajputs  and the other of\tcultivators.   On  a\nparticular festival day both the groups went to a temple for\nworship\t and  cultivators  who\treached\t the  temple   first\noccupied  a  place  therein which was  usually\toccupied  by\nRajputs.   Subsequently\t Rajputs arrived  and  resented\t the\noccupation  of the sitting place by the\t cultivators.\tThey\nshifted\t to  a\tshort distance and  after  holding  a  brief\nconference  came  back\tto  the\t temple\t and  attacked\t the\ncultivators  with  guns, swords and lathis as  a  result  of\nwhich  several persons were injured and two were killed.  43\npersons\t alleged to have taken part in the rioting were\t put\nup for trial before the Sessions judge for having  committed\noffences  under\t s. 302 read with s. 149 and s. 148  of\t the\nIndian\tPenal Code.  The Sessions judge held that  a  common\nobject\ton the part of the accused to kill  the\t cultivators\nhad  not  been\testablished and that it had  also  not\tbeen\nproved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were  guilty\nof  a  particular offence.  On these findings  the  Sessions\njudge  acquitted all the accused.  On appeal the High  Court\nafter  examining  the  entire evidence\tfound  some  of\t the\naccused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to  murder\nunder S. 304 read with s. 149 and s. 148 of the Indian Penal\nCode  and sentenced them to various terms  of  imprisonment.\nThe appeal in respect of some other accused was dismissed as\nno case had been made out against them beyond any reasonable\ndoubt On appeal by special leave against the conviction\t and\nsentence by the High Court,\nHeld,  that the words \"substantial and\tcompelling  reasons\"\nfor  setting aside an order of acquittal used by this  Court\nin  its decisions were intended to convey the idea  that  an\nappellate  court shall not only bear in mind the  principles\nlaid  down  by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup's  case\t but\nmust  also  give  its  clear  reasons  for  coming  to\t the\nconclusion that the order of acquittal was wrong.\nThe following results emanate from a discussion of the\tcase\nlaw on appeals against acquittal:-\n(1)an  appellate  court\t has  full  power  to  review  the\nevidence  upon which the order of acquittal is founded;\t (2)\nthe principles\n121\nlaid  down in Sheo Swarup's case afford a correct guide\t for\nthe  appellate court's approach to a case disposing of\tsuch\nan  appeal;  (3)  the  different  phraseology  used  in\t the\njudgments  of  this  Court, such  as  (1)  \"substantial\t and\ncompelling  reasons\",  (II) \"good  and\tsufficiently  cogent\nreasons\",  and (III) \"strong reasons\", are not\tintended  to\ncurtail\t the  undoubted power of an appellate Court    in an\nappeal\tagainst acquittal to review the entire evidence\t and\nto come to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not\nonly consider every matter on record having a bearing on the\nquestions  of fact and the reasons given by the Court  below\nin  support  of\t its order of acquittal\t in  arriving  at  a\nconclusion on those facts, but should express the reasons in\nits  judgment, which led it to hold that the  acquittal\t was\nnot justified.\nSheo Swarup v. King Emperor, (1934) L. R. 61 I. A. 398, con-\nsidered and followed.\nNur  Mohammad  v. Emperoy, A.I.R. 1945\tP.C.  151,  Surajpal\nSingh  v. The State, [1952] S.c.R. 193, Ajmer Singh  v.\t The\nState  of  Punjab,  [1953] S.C.R` 418,\tPuran  v.  State  of\nPunjab,\t A.I.R.\t 1953 S.C. 459, C. M.  narayan v.  State  of\nTravancore-Cochin,  A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 478, Tulsiram  Kanu  v.\nThe  State,  A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 1, Madan Mohan  Singh's  case,\nA.I.R.\t1954  S.C. 637, Zwinglee Ariel v. State\t of  U.\t P.,\nA.I.R.\t1954  S.C. 15, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh  v.  State  of\nVixdhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 322, S.  A. A. Biyabani v.\nThe State of Madras, A.I. R.<\/a> 1954 S.C. 645, Aher Raja  Khima\nv.  The State of Saurashtra,<\/a> [1955] 2 S.C.R.  1285,  Bhagwan\nDas  v.\t The State of Rajasthan, A.I.R.<\/a> 1957  S.C.  589\t and\nBalbir\tSingh  v.  State of Punjab, A.I.R.  1957  S.C.\t216,\ndiscussed.\nThe  High Court approached the instant case from  a  correct\nperspective and gave definite findings on a consideration of\nthe entire evidence, and in so doing it did not depart\tfrom\nany of the principles laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo\nSwarup's  case\tand also gave reasons for holding  that\t the\nacquittal was not justified.\nAbdul Gani v. State of M. P., A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 31,  referred\nto.\nAlthough  the  powers of this Court under Art.\t136  of\t the\nConstitution  are very wide, interference is  not  permitted\nunless\t\"by disregard to the forms of legal process or\tsome\nviolation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise,\nsubstantial and grave injustice has been done,\" on questions\nof  fact  the  practice of this Court is  not  to  interfere\nexcept in exceptional cases when the finding is such that it\nshocks the conscience of this Court,\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 119  of
\n1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  29,  1957, of the Rajasthan High\tCourt,\tJodhpur,  in
\nCriminal Appeal No. 42 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\n122<\/span><\/p>\n
B.   L.\t Kohli and C. L. Sareen, for the appellants.
\nS.   K. Kapur and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
\n1960.\tDecember  9.  The Judgment of  the  Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nSUBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the
\nconviction and sentence by the High Court of Judicature\t for
\nRajasthan at Jodhpur of the 9 appellants under s. 304,\tread
\nwith s. 149, and s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
\nThe 9 appellants, along with 34 other persons, were  accused
\nbefore\tthe Sessions Judge, Merta.  Briefly stated the\tcase
\nof  the prosecution was as follows: There were two  factions
\nin  village Harnawa-one consisting of Rajputs and  other  of
\nthe  cultivators  of  the village.   Admittedly\t there\twere
\ndisputes  between these two factions in respect\t of  certain
\nfields.\t  At  about 3-30 p.m. on October 31, 1951,  the\t day
\nafter  Diwali,\tpopularly  known as Ram Ram  day,  both\t the
\ngroups\t went\tto  a  temple  called\tBaiji-kathan.\t The
\ncultivators  went first to the temple and sat in  the  place
\nwhich  was  usually occupied by the  Rajputs.\tSubsequently
\nwhen the Rajputs went there, they found their usual  sitting
\nplace occupied by the cultivators and took that as an insult
\nto  them.  Though they were invited by the pujari to sit  in
\nsome other place, they refused to do so and went to a banyan
\ntree  which was at a short distance from the temple.   There
\nthey held a brief conference and then returned to the temple
\narmed  with guns, swords and lathies.  The Rajputs  fired  a
\nfew shots at the cultivators and also beat them with  swords
\nand  lathies.  As a result, 16 of the  cultivators  received
\ninjuries and of these 6 received gun-shot injuries, of which
\ntwo  persons,  namely,\tDeena and  Deva,  succumbed  to\t the
\ninjuries.   Out\t of  the remaining  14\tinjured\t persons,  3
\nreceived grievous injuries and the rest simple ones.  Forty-
\nthree  persons, alleged to have taken part in  the  rioting,
\nwere put up for trial before the Sessions Judge,, Merta, for
\nhaving\tcommitted offences under s. 302, read with  s.\t149,
\nand  s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code.  Five of\tthe  accused
\nadmitted their presence at the scene of
\n\t\t\t    123<\/span>
\noccurrence  but\t pleaded  that after  they  had\t made  their
\ncustomary  offerings  at  the  temple  and  when  they\twere
\nreturning  they\t were attacked by the  cultivators.   Others
\npleaded alibi.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Sessions\tJudge  held that  it  had  not\tbeen
\nestablished that the accused had a common object to kill the
\ncultivators and that it had also not been proved beyond\t any
\nreasonable  doubt  that any of the accused was guilty  of  a
\nparticular offence.  On these findings, he acquitted all the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
On  appeal the learned Judges of the High Court\t found\tthat
\nthe accused were members of an unlawful assembly, that\tthey
\nwere animated by a common object of beating the\t cultivators
\nand  that further out of the 43 accused it had been  clearly
\nestablished  that the appellants, who are 9 in number,\ttook
\npart  in the activities of the unlawful assembly.   On\tthat
\nfinding\t they held that the accused were guilty of  culpable
\nhomicide not amounting to murder under s. 304, read with  s.
\n149, Indian Penal Code; they also held that appellants 1, 2,
\n3  and 4 were also guilty under s. 148 of the  Indian  Penal
\nCode,  as they were armed with deadly weapons, and the\trest
\nunder  s. 147, Indian Penal Code.  For the offence under  s.
\n304, read with s. 149, the appellants were sentenced to\t ten
\nyears’\trigorous imprisonment, and for the offence under  s.
\n148, appellants 1 to 4 were further sentenced to one  year’s
\nrigorous  imprisonment\tand the rest under s.  147,  to\t six
\nmonths’\t rigorous imprisonment.\t Having examined the  entire
\nevidence,  they agreed with the learned Sessions Judge\tthat
\nno  case had been made out against the other accused  beyond
\nany reasonable doubt.  The appeal was, therefore, allowed in
\nrespect\t of the nine appellants and dismissed in respect  of
\nthe others
\nLearned\t counsel  for  the  appellants\tcontended  that\t the
\nSessions  Judge\t came  to a  reasonable\t conclusion  on\t the
\nevidence  and that the.\t High Court had no  substantial\t and
\ncompelling reasons to take a different view.
\nIn  recent years the words “compelling reasons” have  become
\nwords of magic incantation in every
\n124<\/span>
\nappeal\tagainst\t acquittal.  The words are so  elastic\tthat
\nthey  are not capable of easy definition; with\tthe  result,
\ntheir  interpretation varied between two  extreme  views-one
\nholding\t that  if  a trial court acquitted  an\taccused,  an
\nappellate  court shall not take a different view unless\t the
\nfinding is such that no reasonable person will come to\tthat
\nconclusion,  and the other accepting only the conscience  of
\nthe  appellate court as the yardstick to  ascertain  whether
\nthere  are  reasons  to compel\tits  interference.   In\t the
\ncircumstances we think it necessary to clarify the point.
\nThe  scope of the powers of an appellate court in an  appeal
\nagainst\t acquittal has been elucidated by the Privy  Council
\nin  Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor There Lord Russell  observed
\nat p. 404 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “……..\t the  High  Court  should  and\twill
\n\t      always give proper weight and consideration to
\n\t      such  matters  as (1) the views of  the  trial
\n\t      Judge as to the credibility of the  witnesses,
\n\t      (2) the presumption of innocence in favour  of
\n\t      the  accused,  a\tpresumption  certainly\t not
\n\t      weakened by the fact that he has been  acquit-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused
\n\t      to  the  benefit\tof any doubt,  and  (4)\t the
\n\t      slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a
\n\t      finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who\t had
\n\t      the advantage of seeing the witnesses
\nAdverting  to  the  facts of the  case,\t the  Privy  Council
\nproceeded to state,
\n\t      “……..\t They have no reason to\t think\tthat
\n\t      the  High\t Court\tfailed to  take\t all  proper
\n\t      matters  into  consideration  in\tarriving  at
\n\t      their conclusions of fact.”\n<\/p>\n
These two passages indicate the principles to be followed by
\nan  appellate  court  in  disposing  of\t an  appeal  against
\nacquittal  and\talso the proper care it should take  in\t re-
\nevaluating  the evidence.  The Privy Council  explained\t its
\nearlier observations in Nur Mohammad v. Emperor (2) thus  at
\np. 152:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Their Lordships do not think it necessary  to
\n\t      read  it all again, but would like to  observe
\n\t      that  there really is only one  principle,  in
\n\t      the  strict use of the word, laid down  there;
\n\t      that is that the High
\n\t      (1) (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 398.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 151.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      125<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Court  has full power to review at  large\t all
\n\t      the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
\n\t      was founded, and to reach the conclusion\tthat
\n\t      upon  that  evidence the\torder  of  acquittal
\n\t      should be reversed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These two decisions establish that the power of an appellate
\ncourt  in an appeal against acquittal is not different\tfrom
\nthat it has in an appeal against conviction; the  difference
\nlies  more in the manner of approach and perspective  rather
\nthan in the content of the power.  These decisions  defining
\nthe  scope  of\tthe power of an\t appellate  court  had\tbeen
\nfollowed by all the courts in India till the year 1951 when,
\nit  is said, this Court in Surajpal Singh v. The  State\t (1)
\nlaid  down  a different principle.  But a  perusal  of\tthat
\njudgment  does not bear out the construction which  is\tvery
\noften  placed thereon.\tThe passage relied upon is found  at
\np. 201 and it reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is  well-established that  in  an  appeal
\n\t      under  section 417 of the\t Criminal  Procedure
\n\t      Code, the High Court has full power to  review
\n\t      the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
\n\t      was  founded, but it is equally  well  settled
\n\t      that  the\t presumption  of  innocence  of\t the
\n\t      accused is further reinforced by his acquittal
\n\t      by  the trial court, and the findings  of\t the
\n\t      trial court which had the advantage of  seeing
\n\t      the  witnesses and hearing their evidence\t can
\n\t      be  reversed  only for  very  substantial\t and
\n\t      compelling reasons.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the facts of that case this Court held, “we are  inclined
\nto hold that the Sessions Judge had taken a reasonable\tview
\nof  the facts of the case, and in our opinion there were  no
\ngood reasons for reversing that view”.\tWe think that  these
\nobservations are nothing more than a restatement of the\t law
\nlaid  down by the Privy Council and the application  of\t the
\nsame  to the facts of the case before the Court.  Though  in
\none paragraph the learned Judges used the words “substantial
\nand compelling reasons” and in the next paragraph the  words
\n“good  reasons”,  these observations were  not\tintended  to
\nrecord any disagreement
\n(1)[1952] S.C.R. 193.\n<\/p>\n
126<\/span><\/p>\n
with the observations of Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup’s\tcase
\n(1)  as\t to  matters a High Court would keep  in  view\twhen
\nexercising its power under s. 417 of the Criminal  Procedure
\nCode.  If it had been so intended, this Court would have  at
\nleast referred to Sheo Swarup’s case (1), which it did\tnot.
\nThe  same words were again repeated by this Court  in  Ajmer
\nSingh  v.  The\tState  of Punjab  (2).\t In  that  case\t the
\nappellate  court  set  aside an order of  acquittal  on\t the
\nground\t that  the  accused  had  failed  to   explain\t the
\ncircumstances  appearing against him.  This court held\tthat
\nas the presumption of innocence of an accused is  reinforced
\nby  the order of acquittal, the appellate court\t could\thave
\ninterfered only for substantial and compelling reasons.\t The
\nobservations  made  in\trespect\t of  the  earlier  decisions
\napplied\t to  this case also.  Mahajan, J., as he  then\twas,
\ndelivering  the judgment of the court in Puran v.  State  of
\nPunjab\t(3)  again  used the  words  “very  substantial\t and
\ncompelling reasons”, but immediately thereafter the  learned
\nJudge referred to the decision of Sheo Swarup’s case(1)\t and
\nnarrated  the circumstances which an appellate court  should
\nbear  in  mind in interfering with an  order  of  acquittal.
\nThis   juxtaposition  of  the  so-called  formula  and\t the
\ncircumstances  narrated in Sheo Swarup’s case  (1)  indicate
\nthat  the learned Judge used those words only to  comprehend
\nthe statement of law made by the Privy Council.\t  Mukherjea,
\nJ., as he then was, in C. M. Narayan v.State of Travancore-
\nCochin (4) again referred to thePrivy  Council\t decision
\nand affirmed the wide powerof an appellate court and also
\nthe  proper  approach in an appeal against  acquittal.\t The
\nlearned\t Judge did not introduce any further  limitation  on
\nthe power of the appellate court.  But it was observed\tthat
\nthe  High  Court  had not clearly kept before  it  the\twell
\nsettled\t principles and reversed the decision of  the  trial
\ncourt\t‘without   noticing  or\t giving\t  due\tweight\t and
\nconsideration  to  important  matters relied  upon  by\tthat
\ncourt’.\t In Tulsiram Kanu v. The State (5) this
\n(1)  (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 398.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1953] S.C.R. 418.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A I.R. 1933 S.C. 459.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 478.\n<\/p>\n
(5) A.I.R. 1954 8.C. I.\n<\/p>\n
127<\/span><\/p>\n
Court used a different phraseology to describe the  approach
\nof an appellate court against an order of acquittal.   There
\nthe   Sessions\tCourt  expressed  that\tthere  was   clearly
\nreasonable  doubt in respect of the guilt of the accused  on
\nthe  evidence put before it. Kania, C. J., observed that  it
\nrequired  good and sufficiently cogent reasons\tto  overcome
\nsuch  reasonable doubt before the appellate court came to  a
\ndifferent   conclusion.\t  This\tobservation  was   made\t  in
\nconnection with a High Court’s judgment which had not  taken
\ninto  consideration the different detailed reasons given  by
\nthe  Sessions  Judge.  In Madan Mohan Singh’s case  (1),  on
\nappeal by special leave, this Court said that the High Court
\n‘had not kept the rules and principles of administration  of
\ncriminal  justice clearly before it and that  therefore\t the
\njudgment    was\t  vitiated   by\t  non-advertence   to\t and
\nmisapprehension\t of  various material facts  transpiring  in
\nevidence and the consequent failure to give true weight\t and
\nconsideration  to  the findings upon which the\ttrial  court
\nbased  its decision’.  In Zwinglee Ariel v. State of  M.  P.
\n(2) this Court again cited the passage from the decision  of
\nthe  Privy  Council extracted above and applied\t it  to\t the
\nfacts  of that case.  In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State  of
\nVindhya\t Pradesh<\/a>(1), Bhagwati, J., speaking for\t the  Court,
\nafter  referring  to  an earlier  decision  of\tthis  Court,
\naccepted  the principle laid down by the Privy Council\tand,
\nindeed,\t restated the observations of the Privy\t Council  in
\nfour propositions.  It may be noticed that the learned Judge
\ndid  not  use  the  words  cc  substantial  and\t  compelling
\nreasons”.  In S. A. A. Biyabani v. The State of Madras<\/a>\t(4),
\nJagannadhadas, J., after referring to the earlier decisions,
\nobserved at p. 647 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “While  no  doubt on such an appeal  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court  was entitled to go into the  facts\t and
\n\t      arrive  at its own estimate of the  evidence,
\n\t      it  is also settled law that, where  the\tcase
\n\t      turns  on\t oral  evidence\t of  witnesses,\t the
\n\t      estimate\tof such evidence by the trial  court
\n\t      is not to be lightly set aside.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 637.\t(2) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 15.
\n(3) A I.R. 1954 S.C. 322.\t(4) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 645.\n<\/p>\n
128<\/span><\/p>\n
The  learned Judge did not repeat the so-called formula\t but
\nin  effect accepted the approach of the Privy Council.\t The
\nquestion  was again raised prominently in the Supreme  Court
\nin Aher Raja Khima ,”v.\t The State of Saurashtra(1).   Bose,
\nJ., expressing the majority view, stated at p. 1287 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is, in our opinion, well settled that  it
\n\t      is  not  enough for the High Court to  take  a
\n\t      different\t view  of the evidence;\t there\tmust
\n\t      also be substantial and compelling reasons for
\n\t      holding that the trial court was wrong:  Ajmer
\n\t      Singh v. State of Punjab (2); and if the trial
\n\t      Court takes a reasonable view of the facts  of
\n\t      the  case, interference under section  417  is
\n\t      not justifiable unless there are really strong
\n\t      reasons for reversing that view.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It   may   be  noticed\tthat  the  learned   Judge   equated
\n“substantial and compelling reasons” with “strong  reasons”.
\nKapur, J., in bhagwan Das V. State of Rajasthan(1)  referred
\nto  the earlier decisions and observed that the\t High  Court
\nshould\tnot  set  aside\t an acquittal  unless  there  are  ”
\nsubstantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.  In Balbir
\nSingh  v. State of Punjab (4), this Court observed  much  to
\nthe same effect thus at p. 222:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is now well settled that though the\tHigh
\n\t      Court  has full power to review  the  evidence
\n\t      upon  which an order of acquittal is  founded,
\n\t      it   is\tequally\t well\tsettled\t  that\t the
\n\t      presumption of innocence of the accused person
\n\t      is further reinforced by his acquittal by\t the
\n\t      trial  Court and the views of the trial  Judge
\n\t      as to the credibility of the witnesses must be
\n\t      given proper weight and consideration; and the
\n\t      slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a
\n\t      finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who\t had
\n\t      the  advantage  of seeing the  witnesses\tmust
\n\t      also  be\tkept  in  mind\tand  there  must  be
\n\t      substantial  and\tcompelling reasons  for\t the
\n\t      appellate\t Court\tto  come  to  a\t  conclusion
\n\t      different from that of the trial Judge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These observations only restate the principles laid  down by
\nthis Court in earlier decisions.  There are
\n(1)  [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1285.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1953] S.C.P. 418, 423.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I. R. 1957 S.C. 689.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 216.\n<\/p>\n
129<\/span><\/p>\n
other  decisions  of this Court where,\twithout\t discussion,
\nthis  Court affirmed the judgments of the High Courts  where
\nthey interfered with an order of acquittal without violating
\nthe principles laid down by the Privy Council.
\nThere is no difficulty in applying the principles laid\tdown
\nby  the\t Privy Council, and accepted by this Court,  to\t the
\nfacts  of  each\t case.\tBut  appellate\tcourts\tare  finding
\nconsiderable  difficulty in understanding the scope  of\t the
\nwords  “substantial  and compelling reasons”  used  by\tthis
\nCourt  in the decisions cited above.  This  Court  obviously
\ndid  not  and  could not add a condition to s.\t417  of\t the
\nCriminal Procedure Code.  The words were intended to  convey
\nthe idea that an appellate court not only shall bear in mind
\nthe principles laid down by the Privy Council but also\tmust
\ngive its clear reasons for coming to the conclusion that the
\norder of acquittal was wrong.\n<\/p>\n
The  foregoing discussion yields the following results:\t (1)
\nan  appellate  court has full power to review  the  evidence
\nupon  which  the  order of acquittal  is  founded;  (2)\t the
\nprinciples  laid  down\tin Sheo Swarup’s  case(1)  afford  a
\ncorrect\t guide for the appellate court’s approach to a\tcase
\nin  disposing  of  such an appeal;  and\t (3)  the  different
\nphraseology  used in the judgments of this Court,  such\t as,\n<\/p>\n
(i)  “substantial  and compelling reasons”, (ii)  “good\t and
\nsufficiently cogent reasons”, and (iii) “strong reasons” are
\nnot intended to curtail the undoubted power of an  appellate
\ncourt  in an appeal against acquittal to review\t the  entire
\nevidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing  so
\nit should not only consider every matter on record having  a
\nbearing\t on the questions of fact and the reasons  given  by
\nthe court below in support of its order of acquittal in\t its
\narriving  at  a conclusion on those facts, but\tshould\talso
\nexpress those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold
\nthat the acquittal was not justified.\n<\/p>\n
With  this background we shall now look at the\tjudgment  of
\nthe Sessions Judge and that of the High
\n(1)  (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 398.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span>
\n130<\/span><\/p>\n
Court to ascertain whether the High Court anywhere  departed
\nfrom the principles laid down by the Privy Council.
\nThe framework of the judgment of the learned Sessions  Judge
\nmay  be shortly stated thus: The first question was  whether
\nthe  case of the prosecution that the Rajputs  met. under  a
\nbanyan tree, conspired to beat the Jats and came back to the
\ntemple armed with weapons was true.  This fact was spoken to
\nby  several eve-witnesses, including Goga (P.W. 1),  Chandra
\n(P.W.  2) and Doongar Singh (P.W. 21).\tThis fact  was\talso
\nmentioned in the First Information Report lodged by  Doongar
\nSingh (P.W. 21).  There were 20 eyewitnesses who spoke about
\nthe conspiracy; and, out of them, P.Ws. 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15,
\n16, 17, 18. 19. 24 and 25 received injuries during the riot.
\nThe learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence of  P.Ws.
\n1 and 2 and rejected it on unsubstantial grounds and on\t the
\nbasis of insignificant discrepancies.  Therefter, he noticed
\nthat   all   the  other\t eye-witnesses,\t with\tslight\t and
\ninconsequential\t variations,  spoke  to the  fact  of  their
\nreturning  from\t the banyan tree with  lathies,\t swords\t and
\nguns’  but  he did not give a definite\tfinding\t whether  he
\naccepted that evidence or not, though at the fag end of\t the
\njudgment  he found that he could not hold that the  assembly
\nof  Rajputs had any common object of killing anybody.\tThen
\nthe learned Sessions Judge proceeded to consider whether any
\nof the Rajputs were recognized by any of the witnesses.\t  He
\ndivided\t the  accused into three groups, namely,  (i)  those
\naccused who were amongst the Rajputs when they had come\t for
\ndarshan\t of Baiji, (ii) those accused who were\tamongst\t the
\nRajputs when they returned from the banyan tree but for whom
\nthe  evidence  of  taking  part in  the\t actual\t rioting  is
\ndivided,  and (iii) those accused for whom most of the\teye-
\nwitnesses  have stated that they had committed\trioting\t and
\ninflicted  injuries on the assembly of cultivators.   Taking
\nthe first group, the learned Sessions Judge, for the reasons
\ngiven  by  him earlier, rejected the evidence  of  Goga\t and
\nChandra,  pointed  out that 28 accused had  not\t been  named
\nunanimously by all the eye-witnesses,
\n\t\t\t    131<\/span>
\nnoticed\t that  there was long standing\tenmity\tbetween\t the
\nRajputs and the cultivators, and laid down a criterion that,
\nfor  determining  the presence of  any\tparticular  accused,
\nthere  should be an allegation against him about  doing\t any
\novert  act in the unlawful, assembly.  By applying the\tsaid
\nyardstick  he held that none of the accused falling  in\t the
\nfirst  group,  which  included appellants 7, 8\tand  9,\t was
\nguilty of the offences with which they were charged.  Coming
\nto  the second category, with which we are not concerned  in
\nthis  appeal, the learned Sessions Judge again\tapplied\t the
\ntest that an overt act should be proved against each of\t the
\naccused\t and  held that no case had been  made\tout  against
\nthem.  Adverting to the third group, after noticing that  12
\nof  the eye-witnesses were those who received injuries,\t the
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge applied another test  for  accepting
\ntheir evidence.\t In effect and substance the test adopted by
\nhim  was that an accused identified only by one witness\t and
\nnot proved to have done any overt act should be acquitted by
\ngiving him the benefit of doubt.  Applying this test to\t the
\nsaid  witnesses\t he  held that the  said  accused  were\t not
\nguilty.\t  After\t considering the evidence in  the  aforesaid
\nmanner, he came to the following final conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  cannot hold that the assembly\t of  Rajputs
\n\t      had any common object of killing anybody.\t All
\n\t      happened\tat  the spur of the  moment.   Those
\n\t      Rajputs who took part in the rioting have\t not
\n\t      been truthfully named.  Innocent persons\thave
\n\t      been implicated and the cases of those persons
\n\t      who  are alleged to have committed  any  overt
\n\t      acts are also full of doubts.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  appeal the learned Judges of the High Court, as  already
\nstated,\t allowed the appeal in respect of the  9  appellants
\nand  dismissed\tit  in regard to the  others.\tThe  learned
\nJudges\tof  the\t High Court observed that  it  had  not\t the
\nslightest hesitation in holding that the case put forward by
\nthe  prosecution, by and large, represented the\t substantial
\ntruth  and that the incidents at the banyan tree were  true.
\nThey  pointed  out that the reasons given  by  the  Sessions
\nJudge for not believing the evidence of the main  witnesses,
\nGoga
\n132<\/span>
\nand  Chandra,  who spoke as to what happened at\t the  banyan
\ntree,\tcould  not  be\tsustained  and\tthat   the   alleged
\ndiscrepancies and contradictions in their evidence were\t not
\nsuch  as  to detract from truthfulness.\t We have  also\tgone
\nthrough\t the  evidence of Goga and Chandra and\twe  entirely
\nagree  with  the observations of the learned Judges  of\t the
\nHigh  Court that their evidence was natural  and  consistent
\nand  that the alleged discrepancies pointed out by the\tSes-
\nsions  Judge were not either contradictions at all or,\teven
\nif  they were so, they were so trivial as to affect  in\t any
\nway their veracity.  The learned Judges further pointed\t out
\nthat  the evidence of Goga and Chandra was supported by\t the
\nevidence  of Doongar Singh (P.\tW. 21), a police  constable,
\nwho gave the First Information Report at the earliest  point
\nof  time.   The\t recitals in the  First\t Information  Report
\ncorroborate his evidence.  The learned Judges then indicated
\nthat  this version was practically supported by\t other\teve-
\nwitnesses and that they did not see any reason why it should
\nhave  been invented, if it was not true.  Having  regard  to
\nthe said evidence, they found themselves entirely unable  to
\naccept\tthe conclusion of the learned trial Judge that\tthis
\nwas  a\tcase  where  a\tstray  beating\twas  given  by\tsome
\nindividuals  on the side of the Rajputs to some\t individuals
\non  the Bide of the Jats.  They found that the Rajputs\twere
\nmembers\t of  an\t unlawful assembly and that  they  were\t all
\nanimated  by  a common object of  beating  the\tcultivators.
\nHaving\theld  that the learned Sessions\t Judge\twas  clearly
\nwrong  on  the question of unlawful  assembly,\tthe  learned
\nJudges proceeded  to consider the case\tof  each  accused.
\nThey  adopted  the  following  principle,  based  upon\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Abdul Gani v. State of M. P. (1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We quite recognise that in a case of  rioting
\n\t      where  two  inimical  factions  are  involved,
\n\t      exaggerations  are bound to be made, and\tsome
\n\t      innocent\tpersons\t are likely  to\t be  falsely
\n\t      implicated;  but all the same, it is the\tduty
\n\t      of the courts not to throw out the whole\tcase
\n\t      by following the easy method of
\n\t      (1)   A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 31.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      133<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      relying on discrepancies, and, where the\tcase
\n\t      for the prosecution is substantially true,  to
\n\t      find  out if any of the accused  participated,
\n\t      in  the  offence,\t and if\t their\tpresence  is
\n\t      established   beyond  all\t reasonable   doubt,
\n\t      punish  them  for the  offences  committed  by
\n\t      them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
They found, on the evidence, that appellant 1, Sanwat Singh,
\nwho  was  present on the spot was a member of  the  unlawful
\nassembly and had actually struck Sheonath with his sword  as
\na  result  of  which  his  three  fingers  were\t cut; that
\nappellant  2, Dhan Singh, was one of the persons who took  a
\nleading part in the beating; that appellant 3, Mangej Singh,
\nwas  undoubtedly  one of the participants  in  the  unlawful
\nassembly;  that\t appellant 4, Kalu Singh, was armed  with  a
\nsword and attacked the Jats and that his version that he had
\nbeen first attacked by the Jats was not true; that appellant
\n5,  Narain  Singh, was one of the members  of  the  unlawful
\nassembly  and  that he had given beatings to P.W.  25;\tthat
\nappellant 6, Gulab Singh, struck Sheokaran Jat with lathies;
\nand that appellant 7, Sabal Singh, appellant 8, Baney Singh,
\nand appellant 9, Inder Singh, who admitted their presence at
\nthe  spot  but stated that they were attacked by  the  Jats,
\nwere  clearly participators in the beating.  As regards\t the
\nother  accused,\t the  learned Judges,  having  examined\t the
\nentire\tevidence, agreed with the Sessions Judge in  holding
\nthat no case had been made out against those accused  beyond
\nall reasonable doubt.  So far as these accused are concerned
\nthere  is no evidence to show that any of them had a  weapon
\nor that they had taken any active part in assaulting one  or
\nother of the Jats.  In the result, the learned Judges of the
\nHigh  Court  found that the appellants\tformed\tan  unlawful
\nassembly to beat the Jats and that they must have known that
\nmurders\t were likely to be committed in prosecution of\tthat
\ncommon object.\tOn that finding, they convicted and  senten-
\nced the appellants as stated earlier in the judgment.
\nNow,  can  it  be  said that, as  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants argues, the Judges of the High Court had  ignored
\nany of the principles laid down by the Privy
\n134<\/span>
\nCouncil and subsequently accepted by this Court?  We
\nthink not.\n<\/p>\n
The  foregoing\tanalysis of the findings of the\t two  courts
\ndiscloses  the following facts: The Sessions judge,  on\t the
\ngeneral case of the prosecution that the Rajputs,  chagrined
\nby  the attitude of the Jats in occupying their usual  place
\nin  the\t temple, went to the banyan tree,  conferred  for  a
\nshort  time and came back to the temple to attack the  Jats,
\nrejected  the  evidence\t of  the  main\twitnesses  for\t the
\nprosecution,  namely,  Goga, Chandra and Doongar  Singh,  on
\ngrounds\t which do not stand a moment’s scrutiny and  ignored
\nthe voluminous evidence, which corroborated the evidence  of
\nthe said three witnesses, without giving valid or acceptable
\nreasons\t for the same.\tThe learned Sessions Judge  did\t not
\neven  give  a  definite\t finding  on  this  version  of\t the
\nprosecution case, though impliedly he must be deemed to have
\nrejected  it.  In regard to the individual cases he  divided
\nthe   witnesses\t  into\tthree  categories,   and,   applying
\nmechanical  tests, refused to act upon their evidence.\t The
\nHigh Court rightly pointed out that there was no reason\t why
\nthe  voluminous evidence in support of the general case\t and
\nwhy  the evidence of the three witnesses, Goga, Chandra\t and
\nDoongar\t Singh, should be rejected.  The learned  Judges  of
\nthe  High Court accepted their evidence, which\tconclusively
\nestablished  that  the general case was true  and  that\t the
\nappellants  actually took active part in attacking the\tJats
\nwith  swords and lathies.  In doing so, the  learned  Judges
\ndid  not depart from any of the principles laid down by\t the
\nPrivy Council.\tIndeed, they interfered with the judgment of
\nthe Sessions Judge, as they came to the conclusion that, the
\nsaid  judgment, in so far as the appellants were  concerned,
\nwas  clearly  wrong  and contrary to  the  overwhelming\t and
\nreliable  evidence adduced in the case.\t The learned  Judges
\nof the High Court, in our opinion, approached the case\tfrom
\na  correct  perspective\t and gave  definite  findings  on  a
\nconsideration of the entire evidence.\n<\/p>\n
The  question now is, whether the appellants have  made\t out
\nany  case  for interference with the judgment  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt under Art. 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
135<\/span><\/p>\n
Article 136 of the Constitution confers a wide discretionary
\npower  on this Court to entertain appeals in suitable  cases
\nnot  otherwise\tprovided  for by the  Constitution.   It  is
\nimplicit in the reserve power that it cannot be exhaustively
\ndefined,  but  decided cases-, do  not\tpermit\tinterference
\nunless\t“by disregard to the forms of legal process or\tsome
\nviolation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise,
\nsubstantial and grave injustice has been done”.\t Though Art.
\n136  is couched in widest terms, the practice of this  Court
\nis  not to interfere on questions of fact except  in  excep-
\ntional\tcases  when the finding is such that it\t shocks\t the
\nconscience  of\tthe court.  In the present  case,  the\tHigh
\nCourt has not contravened any of the principles laid down in
\nSheo Swarup’s case (1) and has also given reasons which\t led
\nit  to\thold that the acquittal was not justified.   In\t the
\ncircumstances,\tno  case  has  been made  out  for  our\t not
\naccepting the said findings.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 715, 1961 SCR (3) 120 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: SANWAT SINGH & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/12\/1960 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER DAYAL, […]<\/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-25080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 - 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\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-30T23:01:36+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T23:01:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\"},\"wordCount\":4860,\"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\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\",\"name\":\"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T23:01:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 - 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\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-30T23:01:36+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960","datePublished":"1960-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T23:01:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960"},"wordCount":4860,"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\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960","name":"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T23:01:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanwat-singh-others-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-9-december-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/25080","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=25080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}