{"id":260767,"date":"2003-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003"},"modified":"2016-01-04T15:11:20","modified_gmt":"2016-01-04T09:41:20","slug":"babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003","title":{"rendered":"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  532-534 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nBABU LAL AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/10\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2003 Supp(5) SCR 39<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.    Twelve persons faced trial for alleged commission of<br \/>\noffences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with <a href=\"\/doc\/999134\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 149<\/a> of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the &#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/1569253\/\" id=\"a_1\">IPC<\/a>&#8216;), were convicted by First<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri and sentenced to undergo imprisonment<br \/>\nfor life in respect of offence punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1560742\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 302<\/a> read with<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/999134\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 149<\/a> IPC and three years for the rest of the offences. They<br \/>\npreferred three appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment the appeals were dealt with together and conviction and<br \/>\nsentence in respect of Tulua (A-l), Babulal (A-2), Mahesh (A-6), Sahab<br \/>\nSingh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10), Netram (A-l 1) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12)<br \/>\nwere maintained. Sentences of Tulua (A-l), Babulal (A-2) and Netram (A-11)<br \/>\nwere reduced to one year and two years respectively for offences relatable<br \/>\nto <a href=\"\/doc\/1258372\/\" id=\"a_4\">Sections 147<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/763672\/\" id=\"a_5\">148<\/a> respectively. The conviction in respect of Uttam<br \/>\nSingh (A-3), Phool Singh (A-4), Sobran Singh (A-5), Krishna Kant (A-7) and<br \/>\nSarman Singh (A-8) was set aside. Tulua, Babulal and Netram (A-l, A-2 and<br \/>\nA-l1 respectively) were acquitted of the offence relatable to <a href=\"\/doc\/763672\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 148<\/a>.<br \/>\nThey were convicted of the offence punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1258372\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 147<\/a> IPC, while<br \/>\nthe convictions of Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10) and Jagdish<br \/>\nPrasad (A-12) under <a href=\"\/doc\/763672\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 148<\/a> IPC were maintained with modified<br \/>\nsentences. The said judgment is impugned in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Prosecution version in a nutshell leaving out unnecessary details is as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">Manila Raj Kunwar (PW-20) was previously the wife of accused Babulal (A-2).<br \/>\nThis marriage was performed while she was a minor. Since the character and<br \/>\nreputation of Babulal was not without blemish and he was a habitual<br \/>\ndrunkard and used to gamble and had illicit relations with ladies, there<br \/>\nwas tension in the relationship between Raj Kunwar and Babulal. When the<br \/>\nformer tried to reform the latter and requested him to follow the correct<br \/>\npath in life, she was beaten and was thrown out of his house in December,<br \/>\n1985. Thereafter, she started living in the house of her father. According<br \/>\nto the customs prevalent she was re-married on 3rd March, 1986 with Chhatar<br \/>\nSingh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). This led to hostility and<br \/>\nBabulal became inimical to deceased. He tried to arouse the communal and<br \/>\ncaste feelings. On the date of occurrence i.e. 9th March, 1986 while<br \/>\ndeceased was drawing water from his well all the accused persons reached<br \/>\nthere. Accused Jagdish, Sarman and Kasiram were armed with a Luhangi each.<br \/>\nAccused Sabo was armed with a gun, accused Mahesh was armed with a knife<br \/>\nand accused Pappu was armed with a hockey stick. Accused Sobran, Kishan Lal<br \/>\nand Phoola were also each armed with Luhangi. In addition, accused Netram,<br \/>\nTulua and Babu were holding lathis in their hands. After reaching the place<br \/>\nwhere deceased was standing accused Jagdish caught hold of him and other<br \/>\naccused persons with common intention to cause his death inflicted injuries<br \/>\nby respective weapons. Though the deceased cried for help no one<br \/>\nimmediately came to save him. However, when his mother (PW-2) reached near<br \/>\nhim, all the accused persons left the place. The deceased along with his<br \/>\nmother (PW-2) and Pran Singh (PW-1) went to the Police Chowk, Magrauni and<br \/>\nlodged a first information report regarding the incident with the then<br \/>\nStation Incharge. Pran Singh (PW-1) had gone to the place on hearing from<br \/>\nBrijesh Kumar (PW-11). When report was lodged Shiv Baksh Singh (PW-16) sent<br \/>\nthe deceased for medical examination where Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (PW-19)<br \/>\nconducted medical examination. He found nearly 17 injuries on his body.<br \/>\nThere were four internal injuries also. Most of them were inflicted with<br \/>\nsharp edged weapons whereas some were caused by hard and blunt weapons. The<br \/>\ndeceased was referred to the District Hospital, Shiv Puri for better<br \/>\ntreatment. Subsequently, the deceased breathed his last at the Primary<br \/>\nCentre itself and could not be taken to the referral hospital. On<br \/>\ncompletion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and the accused<br \/>\npersons faced trial. They claimed innocence and false implication.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">Though the trial Court did not place much reliance on the evidence of the<br \/>\nso-called eye-witnesses, yet placed implicit reliance on evidence of the<br \/>\ndeceased which was given before the police by way of an information which<br \/>\nformed the first information report and was treated as a dying declaration.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and in respect<br \/>\nof some of the accused there was confirmation of the conviction and<br \/>\nsentence. During the pendency of the appeal accused Tulua has died and by<br \/>\norder dated 5.6.2003 it was directed that the appeal has abated so far as<br \/>\nhe is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted<br \/>\nthat the approach of the High Court is erroneous. The evidence has not been<br \/>\nanalysed in detail which was required to be done, even though the High<br \/>\nCourt concurred with the reasoning and the conclusions. The dying<br \/>\ndeclaration is not acceptable and even there is no material to show that he<br \/>\nwas in a fit condition to make the dying declaration. Even the eye-<br \/>\nwitnesses were not very sure that the deceased was in a fit condition, and<br \/>\neven Murali and Brijesh Kumar (PWs 3 and 11 respectively) have given<br \/>\nvarying statements regarding his consciousness and Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak<br \/>\n(PW-I9) was vague about his consciousness. Though Pran Singh (PW-1) stated<br \/>\nthat the deceased had put his signatures in the FIR, the original documents<br \/>\nshow that it was a thumb impression. The deceased was involved in a number<br \/>\nof criminal cases. Therefore, it is not unlikely that he had many enemies<br \/>\nand accused persons had been falsely roped in. Though the trial Court had<br \/>\ndisbelieved the evidence of PWs. l, 2, 3 and 11 the High court by erroneous<br \/>\nconclusion had placed reliance on their evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the High Court<br \/>\nhas elaborately analysed the materials on record and has come to the right<br \/>\nconclusion relying on the dying declaration. Though there was no necessity<br \/>\nfor any corroboration, the same was provided by the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3<br \/>\nand 11 on which the High Court has acted upon.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">Coming to the plea of appellants relating to detailed analysis of evidence,<br \/>\nit can only be said that while concurring with the conclusions there need<br \/>\nnot be elaborate analysis which would be in essence a repetition of the<br \/>\nconclusions and the reasoning. However, that does not do away with the<br \/>\nrequirement of High Court in analyzing the evidence and to indicate<br \/>\nsufficient reasons even for the concurrence. There cannot be total absence<br \/>\nof reasons. The position is different when the appellate Court reverses the<br \/>\nfindings and the conclusions. In such a case there is an imperative<br \/>\nrequirement for detailed analysis of the evidence and reasoned conclusions.<br \/>\nIn the case at hand the High Court has dealt with the evidence and it<br \/>\ncannot be said that there was total absence of reasons. Though analysed in<br \/>\nbrief, yet the vital aspects have been touched.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">The pivotal point which was pressed into service with some amount of<br \/>\nvehemence was acceptability of dying declaration. There is no legal bar for<br \/>\nthe information given by the deceased to be treated as a dying declaration.<br \/>\nThis position was stated succinctly by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1940450\/\" id=\"a_9\">Munnu Raja and Anr. v.<br \/>\nState of M.P<\/a>., AIR (1976) SC 2199. <a href=\"\/doc\/1959734\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 32<\/a> of the Indian Evidence Act,<br \/>\n1872 (in short the &#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/1953529\/\" id=\"a_11\">Evidence Act<\/a>&#8216;) deals with dying declaration. A person<br \/>\nwho is facing imminent death, with even a shadow of continuing in this<br \/>\nworld practically non-existent, every motive of falsehood is obliterated.<br \/>\nThe mind gets altered by most powerful ethical reasons to speak only the<br \/>\ntruth. Great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying<br \/>\nperson because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or<br \/>\nto concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person. The maxim is &#8220;a<br \/>\nman will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth&#8221; (Nemo moriturus<br \/>\npraesumitur mentire). Mathew Arnold said, &#8220;truth sits on the lips of dying<br \/>\nman&#8221;. The general principle on which the species of evidence is admitted is<br \/>\nthat they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the<br \/>\npoint of death, and when every hope of this world is gone, when every<br \/>\nmotive to falsehood is silenced and mind induced by the most powerful<br \/>\nconsideration to speak the truth; situation so solemn that law considers<br \/>\nthe same as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a<br \/>\npositive oath administered in a Court of justice (See R.V. Woodcock 1 Leach\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">500).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">The materials on record clearly established that the deceased was in<br \/>\nmentally fit condition, though battered in the physical frame. The High<br \/>\nCourt has rightly held that presence of PWs 1 and 2 did not result in any<br \/>\npresumption of tutoring, when the FIR was recorded. Merely because there<br \/>\nwas a thumb impression on the FIR, and not the signature as stated by PW-1,<br \/>\nthat does not falsify the prosecution version. The same has been clarified<br \/>\nby the High Court. It has to be noted that PW-16, who had scribed the FIR,<br \/>\nstated that the contents were read over to the deceased, who had thereafter<br \/>\nput his thumb impression. In fact the defence itself has suggested to PW-1<br \/>\nduring cross examination that the thumb impression was taken on the paper<br \/>\nfirst and thereafter the writings were inserted. In other words, there was<br \/>\nacceptance of the fact that the thump impression was there but writings<br \/>\nwere done later which have been denied by PW-1. We do not find any reason<br \/>\nto discard the dying declaration only on this ground. The High Court has<br \/>\nalso found in analyzing the evidence that the plea relating to anti dating<br \/>\nor anti timing of the FIR is a myth. Though some of the accused persons<br \/>\nhave been acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court has carefully<br \/>\nanalysed the evidence and have sifted the grain from the chaff and<br \/>\ndisengaged truth from falsehood. Merely because some persons have not been<br \/>\nnamed in the FIR and have given the benefit of doubt, that cannot be a<br \/>\nreason for discarding the dying declaration or the evidence of the<br \/>\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">As far as the condition of the deceased at the time of dying declaration is<br \/>\nconcerned it has been clearly established by the eye-witnesses that the<br \/>\ndeclarant was in a condition to make the dying declaration. It is to be<br \/>\nnoted that at the time of dying declaration, the presence of PW-2 has been<br \/>\nclearly mentioned. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was treated to be as<br \/>\npartisan. Relationship is not a factor to wipe out the credibility of any<br \/>\nwitness&#8217;s evidence. The Court in a case where relatives are witnesses has<br \/>\nto test their version on the touchstone of acceptability and credibility.<br \/>\nIf after careful analysis the evidence is found credible, it can be relied<br \/>\nand acted upon to form the basis of conviction. (<a href=\"\/doc\/1311077\/\" id=\"a_12\">See Munshi Prasad v. State<br \/>\nof Bihar<\/a>, [2002] 1 SCC 353, Hukum Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [2000] 7 SCC<br \/>\n410, Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., JT (2002) 3 SC 387. The High Court has<br \/>\nprecisely done that. The trial Court had entertained a shadow of doubt<br \/>\nmerely on account of their relationship. As rightly observed by the High<br \/>\nCourt the approach is indefensible. That being the position, the evidence<br \/>\nof eye-witnesses which has a ring of truth deserves acceptance, which the<br \/>\nHigh Court has done. Though the evidence of PW-11 was attacked on the<br \/>\nground of having traces of tutoring, yet his whole evidence does not get<br \/>\nwiped out even if it is assumed, as urged, that it contains exaggerations<br \/>\nand embellishment. PW-2 who is the mother of the deceased had reached the<br \/>\nplace first. The presence of PW-2 (mother of the deceased) has been<br \/>\nestablished by ample evidence. The appeals are sans merit and deserve<br \/>\ndismissal, which we direct.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 532-534 of 2003 PETITIONER: BABU LAL AND ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/10\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(5) SCR 39 [&hellip;]<\/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-260767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-04T09:41:20+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-04T09:41:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2010,\"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\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\",\"name\":\"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-04T09:41:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-04T09:41:20+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003","datePublished":"2003-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-04T09:41:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003"},"wordCount":2010,"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\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003","name":"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-04T09:41:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-lal-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-october-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260767","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=260767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}