{"id":260506,"date":"2011-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-08-26T22:44:15","modified_gmt":"2016-08-26T17:14:15","slug":"laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/822\/2000\t 1\/ 29\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 822 of 2000\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nLAXMINARAYAN\nRAMSWARAOOP SHARMA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKAMLESHWAR SINGH for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR IM PANDYA, APP for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12-13\/04\/2006 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
In
\n\tthis appeal, the appellant-original accused has challenged the
\n\tlegality of a judgement dated 31-07-2000 rendered by Additional
\n\tSessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad while deciding Sessions Case
\n\tNo. 111\/1998.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe nutshell, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that
\n\tthe accused-appellant was married to one Girija, daughter of
\n\tJagdishprasad Gorvarlal Sharma. The accused was serving in Railway
\n\tPolice Force and was residing in the Railway Colony, Kokhra. It is
\n\tthe case of the prosecution that accused had in the past made
\n\tdemands from the father of his wife for buying a scooter for him
\n\twith a threat that if the demand is not met with, the accused may
\n\tmarry again. Before the Trial Court, it was also the case of the
\n\tprosecution that the accused had illicit relations with another
\n\tlady. On account of mental and physical torture, wife of accused
\n\tcommitted suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself
\n\tablaze on 10-08-1997 at 23:00 hours. She died on the spot. Her son
\n\taged about three years Mohit also received serious burn injuries and
\n\tsuccumbed to such injuries later on in the hospital. The father of
\n\tthe deceased Girija lodged complaint before the concerned police
\n\tstation  which was registered as I.Cr. No. 434\/97. Upon conclusion
\n\tof the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused
\n\talleging offences punishable under sections 498-A<\/a>, 306<\/a> and 304-B<\/a> of
\n\tIndian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and
\n\tthe charge was framed against the accused on 13-07-1998 for offences
\n\tpunishable under sections 498-A<\/a> and 306<\/a> of Indian Penal Code. In the
\n\timpugned judgement, the learned Judge acquitted the accused of the
\n\toffence punishable under Section 306<\/a> of Indian Penal Code but
\n\tconvicted him of the offence punishable under Section 498-A<\/a> of
\n\tIndian Penal Code. Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
\n\timprisonment for a term of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Since
\n\tthe accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined several
\n\twitnesses and produced documents to drive home the charge.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthis stage, it would be necessary to take stock of the evidence on
\n\trecord. For this purpose, I may briefly refer to depositions of all
\n\tthe important witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
Prosecution
\n\tWitness no.1- Surendrasing Pritamsing Panchan, exh.9, is a Panch
\n\twitness. He had been a witness to the panchnama of the scene of
\n\tincident. In his presence certain Muddamal articles such as plastic
\n\tcontainer, a turquoise coloured saree, half burnt blouse, half burnt
\n\tsleeping mattress etc. were seized.\n<\/p>\n
Prosecution
\n\tWitness No.2- Shri Manharsing Popatsing Vaghela, exh.15, is also a
\n\tPanch witness in whose presence certain ornaments and clothes from
\n\tbody of the deceased lady were seized.\n<\/p>\n
Prosecution
\n\tWitness no.3- Jagdishprasad Gorvarlal Sharma, the complainant,
\n\tfather of the deceased lady is examined at exh. 21.\n<\/p>\n
 13-04-2006.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe has stated that his
\n\tdaughter Girija was married to the accused in the year 1989. At the
\n\ttime of marriage, he had given cash amounts in addition to ornaments
\n\tand other items according to the customs of his community. At the
\n\ttime of marriage he had given Rs. 12,000\/- in cash. He had also
\n\tgiven gold and silver ornaments and other items such as sofa-set,
\n\tsewing machine, fan and utensils etc.  Thereafter his son-in-law got
\n\ta job in Railway Police Force. After getting service, his son-in-law
\n\thad demanded a Scooter  for which he had written a letter to the
\n\twitness. He had produced before the Court two letters which were
\n\texhibited. In response to the demand for the Scooter, he had stated
\n\tthat the same will be given when he can raise funds. His son-in-law
\n\tstated that he may give it after one year. He stated that when his
\n\tdaughter used to come to their house, she used to tell her mother
\n\tthe kind of treatment his son-in-law was meting out to her. He
\n\tstated that his daughter had come to his house and stayed for about
\n\t20 to 25 days when Hariom (His brother-in-law) got a son. According
\n\tto him that was in the month of January. He however, could not
\n\tremember the year of that event. He stated that at that time his
\n\tdaughter had not stated anything to him about the behaviour of his
\n\tson-in-law. In August, 1997 Pushpendra i.e. brother of his
\n\tson-in-law had come to his house and stated that his daughter and
\n\tson-in-law have met with an accident and are admitted in the
\n\tHospital. Two or three days after this message, he received a
\n\ttelegram in which it was stated that Girija has expired. He and his
\n\twife thereafter, left Bhopal for Ahmedabad. Upon reaching Ahmedabad,
\n\the found out that not only his daughter Girija, but her three year
\n\told son Mohit had also expired. They expired due to burn injuries.
\n\tHe there upon lodged a complaint before the Amraiwadi Police Station
\n\tagainst the son-in-law.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.1\tIn his cross
\n\texamination, he stated that son-in-law used to write letters almost
\n\tevery month. He however, immediately could not produce such letters.
\n\tHe agreed that his daughter used to come to his house frequently and
\n\the used to ask her about her well being.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness no.4-\n<\/p>\n
\tShantidevi Jagdishprasad Sharma, exh.25, is the wife of complainant
\n\tand mother of deceased Girija. In her examination in chief before
\n\tthe Court, She stated that her daughter Girija was married to the
\n\taccused in the year 1989. At the time of her marriage they had given
\n\tthings as per the custom of their community. They had given
\n\tornaments and other things willingly. Whenever her daughter used to
\n\tcome at house of witness, she used to tell her that her husband
\n\tbrings another girl home. She used to say that her husband harasses
\n\ther. When son was born to Hariom, Girija had come there. The witness
\n\twas not willing to send her to her in-laws house because she had
\n\ttold the witness about the harassment. However, Girija told her to
\n\tplease let her go other-wise she will be in trouble. Her
\n\tfather-in-law had thereafter, taken her. After getting the job, her
\n\tson-in-law had demanded Scooter. According to the witness, Scooter
\n\twas actually given to him. The demand for Scooter was made through a
\n\tletter written by her son-in-law. From side of the in-laws of her
\n\tdaughter Girija, her brother-in-law (husband’s younger brother) had
\n\tmisinformed her that Girija and her husband are admitted in the
\n\tHospital due to accident. They thereafter, received message through
\n\ttelegram. She and her husband took a train and came to Ahmedabad.
\n\tShe had not seen the face of her daughter. She had got very scared.
\n\tShe does not know how her daughter died. She however, believed that
\n\tsince her son-in-law was bringing girl due to the affair, her
\n\tdaughter had died.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.1\tIn her cross
\n\texamination, she denied the suggestion that her daughter stayed more
\n\tat her parents place than with her husband’s. She however, agreed
\n\tthat she had never gone to the house of in-laws of her daughter
\n\tGirija. At this stage to a question put to the witness by the Court
\n\tas to whether her daughter had given any details of the girl that
\n\ther husband use to bring home, all that the witness stated was that
\n\tshe was told that ?S(he) brings another girl and harasses me??.
\n\tShe admitted that her daughter did not tell her that her husband
\n\tused to bring different girls. She stated that her daughter used to
\n\ttell her that he brings only one particular girl. She talked about
\n\tanother girl being brought when she had come home at the time of
\n\tbirth of son of Hariom. Thereafter, her daughter had never come to
\n\ttheir house. She denied the suggestion of the defence Counsel that
\n\tthere were strained relations between the two sides since her
\n\tdaughter was married to the accused by falsely suggesting that she
\n\tis literate.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness no.5-\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. Chandrakant Darji is examined at exh.26. He was Medical Officer
\n\tserving at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He had carried out postmortem
\n\tof deceased Girija. He found that the clothes worn  by the deceased
\n\thad got burnt and had stuck to the body. From the body, from the
\n\thead and from the clothes, he could smell the stench of kerosene.
\n\tThe entire body had turned black. She had received 100% burn
\n\tinjuries. The upper part of the body had got charred. The hair had
\n\talso got completely burnt and from several parts of the body, skin
\n\thad come off. In his opinion, the death was on account of burn
\n\tinjuries. He agreed to the suggestion that if large quantity of
\n\tkerosene is poured on a person and is then set on fire, such
\n\tinjuries could be caused. The injuries found on the dead body could
\n\thave been as a result of burning through kerosene. There was no
\n\tcross examination of this witness.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness No.6-\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. Jayandrabhai Ratilal Modi was examined at exh. 29. He was the
\n\tDoctor who had carried out postmortem of Mohit, young son of
\n\tdeceased lady. He also found that there was 100% burn injuries on
\n\this body which could have been caused if large quantity of kerosene
\n\twas poured on him. He opined that death was due to  burn
\n\tinjuries.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness No.7-\n<\/p>\n
\tJigarbhai Hasmukhbhai Joshi was examined at exh. 32. He was resident
\n\tDoctor at L.G. Hospital at the relevant time. He had given
\n\tpreliminary treatment to the accused for  burn injuries that the
\n\taccused had received. He had produced the medical papers for the
\n\ttreatment given to the accused and history given by him to the
\n\tDoctors treating the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.1\tIn his cross
\n\texamination Doctor agreed that such injuries could have been caused
\n\tif a person tries to save someone in case of fire in the house. He
\n\tstated that in the history that the patient gave, it was stated that
\n\the had received the  burn injuries trying to save his son.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness No.8-\n<\/p>\n
\tDhananjayasing Sundersing Vaghela, exh.34, was the P.S.I. Stationed
\n\tat Amraiwadi Police Station on 10-08-1997. In his deposition, he has
\n\tstated the steps taken by him upon receiving information that the
\n\taccused has been admitted in the L.G. Hospital with  burn injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness No.9-\n<\/p>\n
\tSomvirsing Shriramnathsing Thakur, exh.43 was the neighbour of the
\n\taccused. According to his testimony, he was residing in Unit
\n\tNo.570\/A of Railway Colony, Kokhra in August 1997 with his family.
\n\tHe is police constable in RPF. He was occupying one or two rooms on
\n\trental basis in the quarter belonging to one Musafir Prasad. On the
\n\tother side of the quarter Laxminarayan Sharma i.e. the accused was
\n\tresiding. The doors connecting the two rooms used to remain locked.
\n\tOnce in a while children used to open the door. On 10-08-1997, after
\n\tfinishing his duties from 8 in the morning to 4 in the evening, he
\n\thad come back. On the date of incident, he was at home with his wife
\n\tand daughter. At about 12 O’ Clock at night when they were at home,
\n\tfrom the room of the accused they could hear loud shouts for help.
\n\tThe accused was shouting. He had thereupon by inserting his hand,
\n\topened the door between the two rooms whereupon he saw that there
\n\twas a big fire. The wife and son of Laxminarayan were burning. The
\n\tdoor inside the house of the accused was locked. The witness used
\n\this force and removed the door. Thereafter, Fire Brigade had arrived
\n\tand everybody was shifted to L.G. Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.1\tIn his cross
\n\texamination, he stated that before the Ambulance arrived, accused
\n\tand his son were sent to the hospital in autorickshaw. The wife of
\n\tthe accused was sent in police ambulance because she had got
\n\tseverely burnt. When the police van took her away, he saw that she
\n\thad died.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness no. 10-\n<\/p>\n
\tBharatsing Dhirubha Jhala, exh.44 was the Senior Police Inspector of
\n\tAmraiwadi Police Station who had carried out the investigation and
\n\trecorded the statement of the witnesses. In his examination in chief
\n\the has described the investigation that he carried out. He stated
\n\tthat on the scene of offence, he had drawn a Panchnama. They had
\n\tfound a half burnt saree and mattress covers. All the articles were
\n\tsmelling of kerosene. There was a black coloured plastic container
\n\tin which also some liquid smelling like kerosene was there. He had
\n\tcollected all these items and sealed them.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.1\tIn his cross
\n\texamination he agreed that in the statements before the police given
\n\tby Somvirsing and Nirmalaben, it was stated that while trying to
\n\tsave his wife and son, accused had received  burn injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution Witness No.11-\n<\/p>\n
\tJashwantsing Kacharaji Chavla, exh.46, was the Assistant Police
\n\tCommissioner under whom Amraiwadi Police Station was situated. He
\n\thad taken over the investigation from Police Inspector Shri Jhala
\n\tafter initial investigation was carried out by Shri Jhala. He has
\n\tgiven details of steps taken by him.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn addition to the oral and
\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also
\n\trecorded the statement of the accused under section 313<\/a> of  Criminal
\n\t Procedure Code. Nothing of note appears to be coming out except the
\n\tdenials on the part of the accused. He however stated that on the
\n\tdate of incident, he had done the night duty. He had gone to sleep
\n\tat about 8 to 9 O’ Clock. When his eyes opened he found that there
\n\twas raging fire. They had locked the doors with the help of locks
\n\tand he could not find the key. He had shouted and had tried to save
\n\this son. He had also received  burn injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\tOf the documentary
\n\tevidence, there are two letters written by the accused exh.22 and 23
\n\twhich need to be perused. In his letters written to the
\n\tfather-in-law, the accused asked for a Scooter suggesting that
\n\tearlier he had agreed to pay for getting a job. Now that he had got
\n\tthe job without such payments, such amount can be used for buying
\n\tScooter. He also made a grievance about his wife being illiterate
\n\tand such fact being concealed from him at the time of his marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the basis of above oral
\n\tand documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to
\n\trecord the conviction of the accused under section 498-A<\/a> of Indian
\n\tPenal Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that charge
\n\tunder section 306<\/a> of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The
\n\tlearned Judge was therefore, pleased to award a sentence of
\n\timprisonment for three years with a direction for payment of fine of
\n\tRs. 5,000\/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
\n\tmonths in case of default for payment of fine.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned advocate Shri
\n\tKamleshwar Sing appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
\n\tcharge against the appellant was wrongly held to have been proved.
\n\tHe submitted that there was insufficient evidence to drive home the
\n\tcharge. He further submitted that there was absolutely no evidence
\n\ton record to suggest that the appellant had caused any physical or
\n\tmental harassment to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.1\tIt was further
\n\tsubmitted that there was no demand of any money or valuable item
\n\tmade by the appellant from the parents of his wife. He submitted
\n\tthat the contents of the letters exh. 22 and 23 would suggest that
\n\tthere was only a request and suggestion for buying a Scooter for
\n\tson-in-law and there was neither a stern demand nor any threat if
\n\tsuch demand is not met with. In any case, he submitted that said
\n\tincident took place in the year 1990 as the date of letters would
\n\tsuggest. The wife of the accused died in August 1997. He submitted
\n\tthat after such a long passage of time, it is not possible to
\n\tcorrelate the two events.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.2\tIt was also submitted
\n\tthat the appellant had not caused any injuries nor had he been
\n\tresponsible for burn injuries received by his wife. She died in a
\n\tpure accident in which accident, his son also received fatal burn
\n\tinjuries. He submitted that it was a case of accidental fire. He
\n\ttried to douse the fire and received serious  burn injuries. It was
\n\tfurther submitted that in any event there is no evidence whatsoever
\n\tto connect any action of the accused with the death of his wife even
\n\tif it is found to be not accidental. He submitted that even if the
\n\tprosecution succeeds in establishing that wife of the
\n\taccused-appellant died on account of suicide, there is no evidence
\n\ton record to suggest that the same was committed due to treatment
\n\tmeted out to her by the accused-appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance was placed on the
\n\tdecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Girdhar
\n\tShankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC
\n\t2078 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that acquittal of a
\n\tcharge under section 306<\/a>, though not by itself a ground for
\n\tacquittal under Section 498-A<\/a>, but some cogent evidence is required
\n\tto bring home the charge of section 498-A<\/a> as well, without which the
\n\tcharge cannot be said to be maintained. In the said decision
\n\thowever, there was a specific finding of the trial Court and the
\n\tHigh Court that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and
\n\tnot suicide. It was therefore found that since it was a case of
\n\taccident and was not suicide, explanation (a) to section 498-A<\/a> would
\n\thave no application.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.1\tReliance was placed on
\n\tthe decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of  Besai
\n\tVenkata Ramana Murthy v. State<\/a> reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 4708.
\n\tThe said decision is however, rendered  in peculiar facts of the
\n\tsaid case and I do not find any proposition of law laid down therein
\n\twhich would apply in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.2\tReliance was also
\n\tplaced on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\n\t Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others<\/a> reported in
\n\t(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 281, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\n\twhile repelling the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the
\n\tprovisions contained in section 498-A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code observed
\n\tthat many instances have come to light where the complaints are not
\n\tbona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. It was observed
\n\tthat there is no scope for any preconceived notion or view and it
\n\twas observed that it should be the role of the investigating
\n\tagencies to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on
\n\taccount of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.3\tReliance was also
\n\tplaced on the decision of Learned Single Judge of this Court in case
\n\tof  Indrasing M. Raol v. State of Gujarat<\/a> reported in 1999(3)
\n\tGLR 2536, wherein the learned Judge observed that solitary incident
\n\tof cruelty cannot be the basis for conviction under section 498-A<\/a> of
\n\tIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the other hand learned
\n\tAPP Shri I.M.Pandya for the State supported the decision of the
\n\tTrial Court. He submitted that indisputably, the cause of death of
\n\tthe wife of the accused was on account of  burn injuries. He
\n\tsubmitted that there is no scope to argue that death was an
\n\taccidental death. He submitted that deceased died on account of
\n\tsuicide committed by her.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.1\tFrom the evidence on
\n\trecord, it was submitted by the learned APP that there was history
\n\tof the accused demanding dowry from the in-laws. He had written
\n\tletters to his father-in-law demanding a Scooter. He was also
\n\tunhappy with his wife for being illiterate  and that this was not
\n\trevealed to him before the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.2\t He also submitted
\n\tthat there was evidence of another lady with whom the accused was
\n\tfriendly. The deceased had complained about his behaviour to her
\n\tmother. She used to complain to the mother when she used to visit
\n\ther parents’ house. The mother has clearly stated in her deposition
\n\tthat her daughter complained that the accused person brings home
\n\tanother lady and harasses her.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn short it is the
\n\tcontention of the learned APP that there is sufficient evidence on
\n\trecord of cruelty and harassment meted out by the accused to the
\n\tdeceased. In addition thereto when it is found that the deceased had
\n\tcommitted suicide on account of such harassment in view of the
\n\texplanation (a) of section 498-A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code, the
\n\tconclusions of the trial Court need not be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving heard the learned
\n\tadvocates appearing for the parties and having perused the evidence
\n\ton record at length, following aspects emerge straightway.\n<\/p>\n
\tThat the wife of the
\n\taccused, Girija and his son Mohit died due to burn injuries received
\n\tby them on the fateful night of 10-08-1997.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere was ample evidence on
\n\trecord to suggest that kerosene in  large quantities was poured on
\n\tthe deceased. This is clearly been established by the prosecution
\n\tthrough evidence. The Doctors who had carried out postmortem of
\n\tdeceased Girija as well as her son Mohit have clearly stated that
\n\tthey could smell kerosene from the bodies and clothes. The Doctors
\n\tagreed to the suggestion put to them that excessive burn injuries
\n\treceived by the deceased could have been caused if large quantities
\n\tof kerosene would have been poured on them and, thereafter, set on
\n\tfire. Investigating Agency found kerosene smell from articles seized
\n\tfrom the scene of incident. One Plastic Container also carried
\n\tliquid smelling like kerosene.\n<\/p>\n
\tPossibility of accidental
\n\tdeath is completely ruled out. There is no iota of evidence to
\n\tsuggest that deceased received injuries on account of any
\n\tunfortunate accident. Not even a suggestion has been put forth by
\n\tthe defence in the cross examination that deceased Girija was either
\n\tcooking or carrying out such other activity on the stove and
\n\taccidentally received burn injuries. There is no evidence of a stove
\n\thaving burst at the scene of incident. On the contrary, there is
\n\tample evidence to suggest that kerosene was actually poured over the
\n\tbodies and clothes of Girija as well as her son Mohit.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt can therefore, be safely
\n\tconcluded that deceased Girija died not on account of accident but
\n\tshe committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question however, is
\n\twhat was the reason which drove her to take such an extreme step.
\n\tWas the behaviour of her husband and treatment that he meted out to
\n\ther responsible for such a gruesome end of the deceased lady.
\n\tUndoubtedly, when she decided to take her life and possibly life of
\n\ther own young child there has to be strong reasons to drive her to
\n\ttake such an extreme step. The short question is whether there is
\n\tsufficient evidence on record to connect the accused and the
\n\tbehaviour and treatment of the deceased by him with the final
\n\tunfortunate decision of the deceased lady.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that there are
\n\ttwo letters said to have been written by the accused to his
\n\tfather-in-law which are at exh, 22 and 23 in which he asked for
\n\tbeing given a Scooter. He also conveyed his displeasure about the
\n\tmanner in which his father-in-law had married off his daughter with
\n\tthe accused by misrepresenting that she was literate. However,
\n\treading the letters as a whole, it is not possible to conclude that
\n\tthere were dowry demands made by the accused from his father-in-law.
\n\tHe did request that a Scooter be bought for him and did grumble when
\n\tfather-in-law stated that same would be supplied when he can raise
\n\tfunds. However, I see no suggestion in the letters that for not
\n\tfulfilling the demand, there would by any harassment, physical or
\n\tmental that would be caused to the deceased. This coupled with
\n\tpassage of time between the writing of the letters and the
\n\tunfortunate suicide committed by the wife of the accused, I am
\n\tunable to see any direct correlation between the two. The letters
\n\twere written way back in the year 1990. Unfortunate incident took
\n\tplace on 10-08-1997. Seven long years had passed since writing of
\n\tthe letters. I therefore, cannot find that there was any direct
\n\tconnection between the two events.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis brings me to the
\n\tquestion of harassment by the accused of the deceased on account of
\n\tthird person entering their life.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn his complaint, the
\n\tcomplainant has stated before the police that when his daughter had
\n\tstayed with him for about 20 days on the occasion of birth of son of
\n\tHariom, she had told him that her husband has love affair with
\n\tanother girl and brings her home despite her resistance. In fact,
\n\tthe complainant stated that his daughter conveyed to him that she
\n\twas told by her husband to leave the house if she so desired. But he
\n\twill not discontinue bringing the girl home. Though these statements
\n\twere made by the complainant in the complaint, this aspect is not to
\n\tbe found in his deposition before the Court. In fact in his evidence
\n\tbefore the Court, this witness i.e. P.W.3-Jagdishprasad, exh.21,
\n\tdoes not refer to the above statements made by him in the complaint
\n\tat all. Though he did say that his daughter used to communicate with
\n\this wife about the treatment given to her by son-in-law, he clearly
\n\tstated that during her last visit on the occasion of birth of son of
\n\tShri Harion, she had not stated anything about the behaviour of his
\n\tson-in-law. The statements made in the complaint obviously cannot be
\n\trelied upon and substantive evidence is the one given by the witness
\n\tbefore the Court. In the present case, therefore, fact remains that
\n\tcomplainant in his deposition before the Court at exh.21 has not
\n\tnarrated anything about the alleged affair of his son-in-law and the
\n\tharassment that he used to cause to his daughter due to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is of-course the
\n\ttestimony of the mother of the deceased. In her deposition, P.W.4-
\n\tShantidevi, exh.25, she has stated that her daughter whenever she
\n\tused to come home used to tell her that her husband brings another
\n\tgirl to their house and that the husband is harassing her. When
\n\tGirija had visited the witness at the time of delivery of son of
\n\tShri Hariom, the witness was reluctant to send her back to her
\n\thusband’s place. To a specific question put by the Court about the
\n\tdetails of the lady that the accused used to bring, the witness
\n\tstated that she was told that he brings another girl and harasses.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt can thus be seen that in
\n\ther deposition the mother of the deceased, P.W.4, has given some
\n\tgeneral indications about the involvement of a third person as told
\n\tto her by her daughter. She has however, not given any details of
\n\tthe concerned person. She has not given any further details of any
\n\taffair if there was one between the accused and the anonymous
\n\tperson. She has not given any account of any of the instances when,
\n\tas told to her by her daughter, such person was brought to home, the
\n\tnature of quarrel that the husband and wife were having on account
\n\tof such instances. She has above all not given any details of any of
\n\tthe minor or major quarrels between the husband and wife on account
\n\tof any love affair that the accused might have outside his marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\tOther than the rather
\n\tgeneral indications given by the witness P.W.4-Shantidevi about
\n\tanother girl, there is not even an iota of evidence on record. No
\n\tother witness has even fleetingly referred to the same in the
\n\tdeposition before the Court. As narrated above, the complainant,
\n\tP.W.3, father of the deceased Girija has not made these averments in
\n\this deposition before the Court. If there was another lady in the
\n\tlife of the accused and if the presence of this person was causing
\n\tserious friction between the couple, there would certainly be some
\n\tcorroborative evidence in some form or the other. If eventually as
\n\tis sought to be suggested by the prosecution, such an affair of the
\n\thusband of the deceased and ensuing quarrels between them and
\n\tharassment caused to the deceased by the husband was the main reason
\n\twhy she took the extreme step of putting an end to her life, surely
\n\tthere would by some evidence of some witness testifying the presence
\n\tof a third person. In this regard witness P.W.9- Somvirsing Thakur
\n\tis most crucial. He was residing in the same quarter No. 570-A of
\n\tRailway Colony, Kokhra at the time of incident, in which the accused
\n\talso with his family was residing. Each family i.e. family of the
\n\taccused as  well as family of P.W. 9 was occupying one room of the
\n\ttwo room quarter. There was a common wall and a door separating the
\n\ttwo rooms. As a very next door neighbour, he was the one who rushed
\n\tfirst upon hearing shouts of help at midnight of 10-08-1997. He
\n\twould be an ideal person to throw some light on visit of another
\n\tlady and the quarrels that the same might have occasioned  between
\n\tthe husband and wife on account of the same. If there were quarrels,
\n\tif there was friction between the husband and wife and if harassment
\n\tof husband to the wife on account of his affair outside the marriage
\n\twas so grave as to lead the deceased to put an end to her life and
\n\talso to put an end to the life of her own son, surely P.W.9 who was
\n\toccupying room adjacent to the room occupied by the accused with his
\n\tfamily would have come to know of at-least part of the problem.
\n\tStrangely, the prosecution has not put a single question to the
\n\twitness on this aspect. This witness in his deposition before the
\n\tCourt at exh.43 has not thrown any light on what drove the deceased
\n\tto take such an extreme step.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe conclusion of the above
\n\tappreciation of evidence would be that barring some general
\n\tstatements made by the mother of the deceased P.W.4, there is no
\n\tiota of evidence to suggest any love affair of the accused with some
\n\tlady. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he used to
\n\tbring her home which used to cause friction between the husband and
\n\twife or that he used to harass his wife for objecting to his affair.
\n\tThere is not a slightest evidence to corroborate the statement made
\n\tby the P.W.4 in her deposition. It is not to suggest that deposition
\n\tof a witness if other-wise found believable, truthful and reliable
\n\tcannot be accepted without further corroboration. If the deposition
\n\tis clear, is found to be reliable and if witness is found to be
\n\ttruthful, the Court can certainly depend upon the same without
\n\tlooking for further corroboration. In this case however, I find that
\n\tP.W.4- Shantidevi has not given any details about the so called love
\n\taffair of her son-in-law i.e. the accused-appellant.  Barring some
\n\tgeneral statements suggesting that her daughter informed her that
\n\ther husband brings home another lady and harasses her because she
\n\tobjects to it, P.W.4- Shantidevi  has not given any details. There
\n\tis no description, name or details of the so called lady whom the
\n\taccused used to bring home. There are no details of any of the
\n\tinstances where he might have brought some girl causing anguish or
\n\tagony to the deceased. No details regarding any friction or quarrel
\n\tbetween the husband and wife have been given. In view of such patchy
\n\tand severely   scanty evidence, in isolation, without any further
\n\tcorroboration whatsoever, it would be extremely unsafe to base the
\n\tconviction of the accused. Human mind is a complex organism. Some
\n\tare super sensitive while some are not. What drove the deceased to
\n\ttake such an extreme step and so gruesomely take her own life and
\n\tperhaps life of her own child  will perhaps remain a  mystery for
\n\tever. There may be several reasons why a person out of sheer despair
\n\tmay decide to take the ultimate extreme step of taking ones own
\n\tlife. Automatically, however it is not possible to connect the
\n\thusband of the deceased with her violent end, without there being
\n\tsome evidence on record. However, much temptation there may be for
\n\tfinding a scapegoat to form a legal conviction, there must be
\n\tevidence on record. The missing link between the accused and the
\n\tultimate action of the deceased cannot be bridged by surmises and
\n\tconjectures. For lack of supporting evidence on record, the accused
\n\tmust get the benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, I find that
\n\tthe judgement of conviction against the appellant u\/s. 498-A of
\n\tIndian Penal Code<\/a> cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The
\n\tappeal is allowed. Judgement and order dated 31-07-2000 passed by
\n\tAddl. Sessions Judge ?  Court No.13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case
\n\tNo.111 of 1998 is set aside. Bail bond stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
(Akil Kureshi,J.)<\/p>\n
(raghu)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/822\/2000 1\/ 29 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 822 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLaxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 - 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\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-26T17:14:15+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T17:14:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5459,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T17:14:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 - 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\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-26T17:14:15+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T17:14:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011"},"wordCount":5459,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011","name":"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T17:14:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-vs-unknown-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxminarayan vs Unknown on 7 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/260506","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=260506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}